Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 06:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Hi, I'm reviewing this article. Please note that this review is being used for the GA Recruitment Centre [1], so there will be more explanations included. It's my practice to first fill out the template, and then include a more thorough prose and source review. I look forward to this review, since my niche on WP is American (and one Aussie) children's TV shows. It should be fun learning about UK kiddie's TV. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 699 0180 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Interesting and fun article, very close to GA. There are a few issues that are easily addressed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
There are a few minor problems with the prose; see my more thorough prose review below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Some work needs to be done on using more reliable sources. See source review below.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable, with one main editor, the nominator of this article.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Only 2 images, both are tagged appropriately.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I agree with the reader comment; there should be more images, at least of some of the actors involved. I think that you could also include images of some of the historical figures mentioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold until prose and source reviews are completed, and then until comments have been addressed. Thank you for your patience.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these initial comments (and commendations), I await your more thorough prose and (especially) source review with great interest.

Meantime, re: images, I absolutely agree that more are needed. Up until recently the article did in fact include a group shot of the starring troupe as well as a couple of the cast in historical costume. Thing is, these were all non-free images, which has kicked off a bit of a merry-go-round of confusion:

Immediately they were published, all the images in the article were challenged at WP:NFCR on the rationale that non-free imagery wasn't justified re: a better understanding. It was decided that the logo, title page image and a group shot of the cast could stay, but that the others were irredeemably superfluous.
More recently, another admin abruptly deleted the cast shot as well, again citing lack of justification (his full rationale is visible on the first page of the edit history). He replaced it with a free image of one of the cast, but it's my feeling that given the ensemble nature of the show to single out one performer would be even more confusingly irrelevant, so I deleted that in turn.

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to search since, there doesn't seem to be any plausible free imagery along the appropriate lines (unless, and this is something I actually can't find a good answer for, photos the cast themselves share on Twitter count as usable?) And given my experiences to date (plus a close reading of the relevant Wikipolicies) I am also loath to start messing about again with non-free images. Would welcome any guidance you could provide. Shoebox2 talk 23:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the below content before I saw your response, so I'll respond to this now. I feel your pain regarding images; I've had fits trying to find appropriate images for the children's TV show articles I've worked on. Producers of these programmes are notoriously protective of their images, for good reason, but the quality of their articles here have suffered. I've even resorted, on the advise of other reviewers, to write Sesame Workshop requesting that they release images to WP, but I've never received any responses. So I don't blame you for being skittish about trying to add more images. One "solution" I've found is the use of quoteboxes, which serve the same purpose of images: they break up the prose and make it more readable for modern audiences. I've looked over the article some, and don't have any suggestions you've probably haven't thought of yourself. Sometimes it's not possible to include images, and this may be one of those situations. I sympthatise, really. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

I tend to be somewhat thorough in my prose reviews, but I promise that the end result is a stronger article. I review articles with the perspective of someday going through the FAC process (which this article has the potential for), so I try to prepare the nominator for it. Consequently, some of my comments and suggestions apply to the FA criteria, but again, the goal is a higher quality article. I go through each section, like they do in FAC. Please feel free to disagree; if you give me a good and logical reason not to follow my suggestions, I usually accept it. I look at the lead last, since I like to be more familiar with the article before I judge if it summarises the article. Let's begin.

I think that you should seriously consider changing the structure of this article. According to MOS:TV, "The structure of television articles, season/series articles, and episode articles are all relatively identical. The sections below will map out the basic structure for these articles. The basic order of these pages tends to follow: Lead, episode plot, production, and critical reception; with any other miscellaneous sections coming afterward. This is because Wikipedia uses plot information as context for understanding the real world information in the article" Children's TV shows require a different structure, of course; instead of a plot section, we need to include "Format". (It's my educated opinion that for these kinds of shows, format is king.) In the kids' TV show articles I've written (i.e., Sesame Street and Blue's Clues, both of which are FAs), I've placed the "Format" section after the "History" section, which you call "Background", since I don't think that you need to have an understanding of the shows' format to understand the show's context; rather, I think that an understanding of the genesis and development of the show is necessary to understand everything that follows, including the format.

This is the structure I advise for this article: I'd put your "Background" section first. Then I'd put your "Format" section second. For the SS and BC articles, and on the advice of other editors, I included an "Educational goals" section after because including a discussion about curriculum and the producers' goals seemed to fit best here. Your "Content" section seems to discuss the producers' goals; I'll leave it up to you to rename it. Then I'd move the "Production details" below "Content". Actually, the section you've named "Production details" reads more like "Production history"; I suggest you move it further down in the article in the the MOS refers to as a miscellaneous section. "Process" seems like it would go in "Production details", with "Music" and "Cast" as subsections, although I think that your "Cast" section is fine as a stand-alone section. The order of the rest of the sections look fine.

At this point, I'd go through the sections, but I think that I'll stop for now, to give you time to re-structure, if you wish, since if you re-structure, you may need to move some of the content around. Remember that these are just suggestions. I make them because I'm not sure that FAC reviewers would find the current structure of this article acceptable, since it doesn't follow the MOS. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think this article has the potential for FA status?! *prepares to happily follow your every instruction* OK, seriously, thanks so much for taking this on in such depth.

I've taken most of your advice above, and can indeed see the overall good sense of the suggestions more and more as I go along. Am not completely sold on renaming 'Content' to 'Educational goals' in this particular case, inasmuch as the section is basically about explaining that there weren't any, at least not formally... but am at a dead loss as to what else to call it (which is largely how it ended up being named 'Content' to begin with), so am willing enough to follow the accepted convention. The only major deviation I've made is with the Music section. It's a deeply integral part of the show's format, so I've left the bulk of it as a subsection there, and moved the one paragraph detailing the actual creation of the songs to 'Process'.

As for images -- thanks for understanding; 'fits' is a good description of what I've been having as well. I do though have an idea about sourcing that might just help find a free image of the cast at least... Shoebox2 talk 04:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I've moved the notes re: consciously maintaining accuracy into the 'Educational goals' section, which I think makes that title look much more plausible. The remaining stuff under 'Process'--which was frankly looking less and less like it needed its own section--has been merged into 'Production' and 'Cast' as needed. Very pleased with the result, pending further review of course. :) Shoebox2 talk 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA2: Right, have sourced a free image of the cast from a friend, a personal photograph. Have explained (via Facebook, as we're on different continents) the concept of crediting under CC license, and she's fine with that as long as she's credited. Hopefully all is OK from there... Shoebox2 talk 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha you're cute. Yes I think that this could be a FA; it certainly has the content. I'll be able to make a better assessment as I get further into the review. And now I'm all puffed up about how some of the developments I created about formatting children's TV articles is being carried on! ;) Give me some time to decide about what you've done so far, but I agree that it's looking much improved. I think that the image is fine, although to be honest, I've never been the best judge about images. I suggest that you ask someone more knowledgeable about images, and see what the FAC reviewers say when you get there. I hope to have some time tomorrow to look more closely at the prose. I appreciate your patience with me; it's been an unusually busy week. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, under the circs I'd rather wait for an exhaustive review. Just wondering though, is there anything else I could be doing to address your concerns in the meantime? You mentioned problems with sourcing -- anything in particular I could be strengthening? Thanks much, Shoebox2 talk 01:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my apologies that this has taken so long. Now I'll start on the thorough prose review, in which I'll go through each section and make suggestions. Thanks for following my suggestions about structure; I agree that it looks much stronger now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, you weren't kidding about 'thorough'! Some really good suggestions here tho, much appreciated. Individual comments marked with a

below. Shoebox2 talk 15:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I think you should include 1-2 sentences introducing the book series, and a link. Something like "Horrible Histories is based upon the long-running series of illustrated history books published in the United Kingdom by Scholastic." (I took this directly from the book series article.) I'll look at the lead last, as per my practice, but I think you should also include the about template at the top of the article, like what's there at the book series article.

Y Agreed, both good (in fact, rather embarrassingly obvious in hindsight) ideas. Done.

The initial impetus behind the TV series was LionTV executive producer Richard Bradley, whose company had previously produced several adult history-themed programmes and whose son was a fan of the Horrible Histories books. Passive sentence; it'd be tighter if you said something like this: "LionTV executive producer Richard Bradley, who had previously produced several adult history-themed programmes and whose son was a fan of the Horrible Histories books, came up with the idea of creating a TV series."
While disclaiming any active role in developing or creating the new series, Deary himself would eventually appear in several small roles as well as contributing to the writing. Although starting a sentence with a conjunction is grammatically correct, I don't think that it's very encyclopedic. You can discount this advice, but I think you should fix it here. (Remember, you can not follow any of my suggestions, but it's polite to explain why.) How about: "Deary denied that he had an active role in developing or creating the new series, but he eventually appeared in several small roles and contributed to the writing."

Y I've rearranged and slightly reworded these sentences along the lines suggested.

Overall, to ensure the show would be recognisably respectful of the Horrible Histories brand, then in its second decade, the producers determined to maintain the franchise's already familiar visual style and content. I'm not sure what "recognizably respectful" means, and is the use of "determined" a Briticism? If so, how about, for clarity's sake and to tighten up the prose, how about: "The producers were determined that the show would pay respect to the Horrible Histories brand, then in its second decade, by maintaining its well-known and familiar visual style and content."

Y I've never been particularly happy with this sentence myself. It's an attempt to concisely summarise the idea that producers wanted to ensure the show would be recognizable as and respectful of the already familiar, best-beloved concept. ('Determined', meanwhile, isn't so much a Briticism as a symptom of my fondness for obscure word usages. Will try and keep that to a minimum going forward.) Think I've now come up with a clearer variant with your help.

Eventually Bradley with director Dominic Brigstocke concluded that the material was strong enough to stand on its own, developing the idea of a live-action sketch-comedy showcase in consultation with CBBC executives. How about: "Eventually Bradley and director Dominic Brigstocke concluded that the material was strong enough to stand on its own, so they developed, in consultation with CBBC executives, the idea of a live-action sketch-comedy showcase."

Y Used this nearly verbatim. Much nicer phrasing.

Wanting to do the material full justice, Brigstocke and newly appointed series producer Caroline Norris next made the decision to use their existing contacts to put together a veteran creative team which would have roots almost entirely in the adult UK comedy community. I think this sentence is too long. I don't think you need to state that Brigstocke was "newly appointed", since everyone was because it was a new show and everyone was new. How about: "Brigstocke and series producer Caroline Norris wanted to do the material full justice, so they used their existing contacts to create a veteran creative team with roots almost entirely in the adult UK comedy community."

Y Another sentence I've been wondering uneasily about for some time. Happily revamped along the lines suggested.

The BBC readily approved this cross-demographic experiment, along with the concurrent wholesale adoption--insofar as was possible in a programme aimed at young children--of the core franchise concept of "history with the nasty bits left in",[6] which frequently involved the use of "gross-out"-style bodily-function humour and comic violence. Again, too long. How about: "The BBC readily approved this cross-demographic experiment, insofar as was possible in a programme aimed at young children, to fully and concurrently adopt the franchise's core concept of "history with the nasty bits left in". It also frequently involved the use of "gross-out"-style bodily-function humour and comic violence.

Y Yeah, I had a feeling after reading WP:MOS that my sentence length was going to get me into trouble. :) Will go through the rest of the article and attempt to mitigate similiar issues. Meantime, have split this sentence into its component clauses (the approval of the adult-focused creative team and the 'grossology' are actually two different things; I agree that possibly wasn't clear enough, but do think it's important to keep them separate.)

Without specifically including references aimed directly at adults, the entire team was also determined from the beginning not to adapt the humour to children or otherwise patronise their audience, but rather to simply make the best comedy series possible with the material. Again, another conjunctive phrase and too long, and some of this is repetitive. How about: "The team was determined to not include references aimed at adults, but not adapt the humour to children or otherwise patronise their audience. Instead, they sought to make the best comedy series possible with the material."

Y Nnngggghhh... OK. I think the original version gets the point across more elegantly, but can also see your technical points. Decent compromise hopefully achieved. :)

Next sentence: more of the same. How about: "According to the creators and commentators, the team was inspired by classic adult satires such as Blackadder and the Monty Python films, as well as by the Carry On series and the League of Gentlemen."

Y Have separated this sentence into component clauses. I still think it's worth separately hilighting the two concepts -- the fact that the team specifically watched Life of Brian etc initially to set the tone, and then the ongoing influences.

That's all I have time for now, so I'll stop here and continue at a later time, probably tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Meantime, as noted, I'll go through and see if I can head off any further problems along the lines mentioned. Thanks again, Shoebox2 talk 15:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC Format

The most frequently seen subjects are... Wow, that's a lot of subjects. It seems like this is an exhaustive list rather than a list of the most frequent subjects on the show. How about: "The show has focused on the following subjects: ..." Link WWI and WWII, please.

Y Heh... you want exhaustive, you should've seen the original list it was cut down from. But yeah, a few more can be taken out. Have reduced the list to only those eras seen over all five series, and linked those last two as requested. ETA: Added a few important later ones back in, hopefully in a way that will still maintain readability. I feel like it's useful to help demonstrate the scope of the series' ambitions.

While largely maintaining Deary's initial philosophy of not poking fun at events too prominently within living memory, in the fifth and final series, this timeframe was broadened to include some of the more important milestones of the immediate post-WWII era, including the civil rights movement and the space race between the US and the USSR, under the banner of "Troublesome Twentieth Century". Again, too long and wordy. Remember, short and concise sentences are best. How about: "Although they maintained Deary's practice of not poking fun at more-recent events, the producers began, during the fifth and final series, to focus on the post-WWII era (or the "Troublesome Twentieth Century"), including events such as the civil rights movement and the space race between the US and the USSR."

Y Reworded along the lines suggested above, with minor modifications; I think 'within living memory' is more to the point, and it wasn't really a 'focus', more a matter of a handful of sketches. ETA: Removed the first bit altogether. Deary eventually broke that rule himself, and it's always bugged me anyway that the claim wasn't sourced -- in fact there's no real evidence that the TV show producers were following that concept specifically.

Each episode randomly features six to eight... What do you mean by "randomly"? I would think that the periods were chosen carefully. Do you mean that the periods have no relation to one another?

Y Pretty much, yes. As noted in the article, the choice of time periods was overwhelmingly derived directly from the books, with a few unique ones added in the last two series. Which ones were used seems to have had no particular rhyme or reason beyond the natural 'we haven't tried this yet..." inherent a five-year run.

Beyond that, episodes were cut together by the producers, entirely on their whim, after the sketches were filmed en masse. Meaning any era was just as likely to show up next as any other, and no quota of appearances per episode or series was imposed. (If you look closely it's possible to discern creative commonalities in the content of some episodes, but it's not something any but the most devoted fan would pick up.) Basically, the show resembles a conventional British sketch-comedy much more than it does an 'educational' series. I've added what I hope is a bit of clarification to this effect in the article. ETA: Also renamed the 'Educational Goals' section to more accurately indicate what the show was trying to do. 'Goals' implies a level of deliberate structure and care that this show just doesn't have.

This article really shows the differences between American and British children's programming. Of course, I think that both approaches have their place, and after watching the the List of Monarchs clip, I wish that some of U.S. shows were more like HH. All that to say I agree with your change of title, although part of me thinks that there's a better alternative, which I'm unable to come up with at this time. Perhaps as you go farther, someone else can come up with a better idea. I also like what you've done here; it's much clearer. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and that's exactly how I feel about the section title (and the differences in programming approaches) as well. Shoebox2 talk 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear about how the segments are presented. Are all the time periods presented together, or do they jump around from period to period?

Y All sketches within a given era tended to be featured together. But otherwise, again, there was no set structure; Tudor segments might be followed by Ancient Egypt which in turn would be followed by the Stone Age and then the Victorians.

As the later 'Educational Goals' section also hopefully makes clear, any actual teaching was done on an informal and decidedly unprofessional basis. There was no vetting to determine optimal audience impact, in the Sesame Street vein; British children's edutainment just doesn't work that way, or at least has distinctly different priorities re: what's considered optimal. As it was once explained to me, the British emphasis is on avoiding modelling dangerous/destructive behaviours that could plausibly be imitated (and/or would advance understanding unacceptably, ie. swearing or sexual activity) otherwise it's largely assumed that the kiddies will either be OK with it or won't get it anyway.

Bear in mind that Doctor Who, for all its intense and often dark sci-fi/fantasy themes, is still considered 'family entertainment' in UK terms. HH, meanwhile, in only the third episode happily explained the Vikings' concept of heaven and Hell to seven-year-olds, complete with cute (and frankly hilarious) little Up/Down infographics... then followed that up with a sketch featuring Nero using Christians as 'Roman candles' (although in that case they did spare audiences the visuals).

Ah, invoking my favorite series, are you? And I love British humour. As I say above, there's a place for this kind of kids' TV, and I think you do a good job describing how culture affects the production of these shows. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Actually, I'm a major Sesame Street fan myself... or at least of the classic 70's-80's version that represents my childhood. As I said above, I do agree that both approaches have definite benefits, but... well, I get nostalgic for what seems like positive freewheeling anarchy in comparison to Elmo's World. That's part of my affection now for Horrible Histories, I suppose -- that sheer sense of having fun with learning, regardless of anything else. Shoebox2 talk 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many are specific parodies of other familiar aspects of UK popular culture, either programming or personalities. You don't need the word "specific". What do you mean by "programming"? TV or movies?

Y 'Specific' switched out for 'recognizable', which was the intended concept. 'Programming' refers to TV, now that I come to think of it. Edited a bit to make all that clearer.

Sketches are divided by short quizzes and interludes featuring puppet Rattus Rattus, played by Eccleston to fit the general theme as a knowledgeable but deeply cynical little rodent who unabashedly enjoys both filth and bad puns (his oft-repeated catchphrase is "That's 100% accu-rat!"). This is the first time you mention Eccleston, so please list his entire name and briefly identify him. What general theme? If you mean that he goes along with the scatological humour, you don't have to hit us over the head with it. You could just cut the phrase "to fit the general theme as". I suggest omitting the words: "deeply," "little", "unabashedly". Also, when you use a parenthetical as a complete sentence, it's better to punctuate it that way. In this case, you could put a full-stop after "puns" and make the sentence within the parenthesis into a complete sentence.

Y Fixed ref to Eccleston, that was a problem caused by the restructuring. I'm going to argue that 'deeply' and 'unabashedly' help enhance understanding of the subject. Removed the rest without qualm, tho.

This entire section has no references. I realize this is like the "Plot" sections in other articles, and they don't necessarily need references, this concerns me a little. Where did you get the list of sketches?

Y Erm... off the top of my head, basically, as bolstered by, if I may say so, my unusually detailed knowledge of the show (having previously undertaken an episode-by-episode review of same, like so: http://hhreviews.wordpress.com/. No I don't have a life, thanks for asking.)

Again, the list here has already been reduced considerably from a massive, uber-fancrufty wall o'text that attempted to catalogue every single possible sketch inspiration. I've tried to refocus on only the legitimately notable recurring sketches (they're easy to pick out in context, as the most frequently-seen and/or elaborate) and mention only those parody inspirations that are really, really obvious. I can see myself removing a few entries if the list is too long (or changing the descriptions if too informal), but all the details in this section can be verified as important plot points by even a casual viewer of the show.

Ha ha, I have the same issues regarding not having a life. I'm glad to hear about the process, and that you've worked hard on getting rid of the fan-cruft. However, it comes dangerously close to OR, but I'll take your word that casual viewers could verify them. If I were being picky (har-har), I'd tell you to look for sources for all of them, but I don't think it's necessary for GA. You might want to think about it going forward, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the trust. In return, for the meanwhile I've gone over the list and tightened it up some more, so as to eliminate as many OR-ish overtones as I can. Hopefully it now looks more like a proper plot section, and less like I've substituted one form of cruft for another. :) Shoebox2 talk 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Original music plays a large role in the show, to the extent that it was showcased for the BBC Proms' annual children's concert series in 2011. I don't see how the two phrases in this sentence are connected. I wonder if the info about the Proms should go into the "Reception" section.

Y The idea is that the music stood out as notable and popular to the extent that they devoted an entire prestigious public concert to it... however, on second thought, yes that is a bit obscure as written. I've clarified it while keeping the Prom info in-place; an attempt to move it to the Reception section just felt too weird, as if I were suddenly switching focus to an entire other production in the middle of this one.

Next sentence: unsourced. I think that this is important enough to have a reference here, especially the part about episode 5 of Series 1.

Y Slight problem; I have added a ref for the song-per-episode and the format of same, but there is none for the missing song in S01E05 (in fact the ref in question refers to 'every episode' having a song). It's a bit hard to explain, but most media commentators came to the show around Series Two or later, after the music really started to become special. Frankly nobody but devout fans really care about the Series One songs save for 'Born 2 Rule'; they're otherwise so comparatively nondescript that a missing one just isn't worthy of note. Could we consider this a plot point, verifiable at the source? ETA: I do have a source indicating a missing song, but not where it's missing from: http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/16/horrible-histories-mourned-after-last-episode-airs-3885552/ . Otherwise, the episode itself is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMXi5UAkm70

In the first series, these generally had no particular satirical slant... What are "these"? If you're referring to the above paragraph, perhaps this sentence better belongs there (i.e., combine the 1st 2 paragraphs).

Y 'These' are indeed the previously-mentioned songs, have clarified and moved the YouTube ref to a less confusing spot. Think the paragraphing works better as-is, tho.

("Born 2 Rule", which featured King Georges I-IV performing in the recognisable style of a modern boyband) You don't need the word "recognisable". "King Georges I-IV": I know you have this linked, and you should, but I don't know about "George" as a plural. This is just a suggestion: how about changing it to "the first five English monarchs named George".

Y I'm going to argue this one. 'Recognisable' helps make the point that the parody was deliberate, and understood as such. The plural on 'Georges' I think is OK, as it seems to be acceptable if not actually common UK usage, and in fact is used within the song in question ("We were born to rule over you/Georges I, III, IV and II...").

The "Savage Songs" info should be sourced.

Y Not sure how broad a source you need here? I've provided a ref for the existence and name of these specials, in the form of an episode guide from the generally respectable British Comedy Guide, is this OK? Will keep looking for something more substantial.

Here's what I think about using these kinds of sources: for GAs, they're fine. I also think they've okay for FAs, if you can make the case that you need to source for comprehensiveness. It also depends upon the kind of article; for ones about TV shows, using a list like this one is often acceptable. So I'm fine with using this source here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These songs have grown generally to be among the most critically praised elements of the show, both for the cleverness and complexity of the various parodies and the skill with which they are executed. What are "these songs"? The ones on YouTube? Again, suffers from wordiness, but I can't suggest anything until I ask a question. When you're talking about the parodies, are you talking about how the songs parody the historical events or the musical genres (i.e., boybands)?

Y Another sentence I was never happy with. :) Ended up rewriting the entire section pretty extensively in the wake of fixing the Prom ref, hopefully all is much clearer and more informative now.

"Adult demographics": I hate that phrase, because it tells me nothing. How about just calling this group "their adult audience"?

Y Done.

One third-series tune, "The English Kings and Queens", which lists all of the British monarchs since William the Conqueror in cumulative style, was written as a specific memorisation challenge to the show's young audience, whom the creative team had noted were often inspired to memorise lyrics to previous songs. Again, long and wordy. How about: "One third-series tune, "The English Kings and Queens", lists all of the British monarchs since William the Conqueror in cumulative style. The creative team wrote the song to challenge the show's young audience, whom had been inspired to memorise lyrics to previous songs." (I just had to go on YouTube and find this song! Great stuff. You really shouldn't use a YouTube video as a reference, but I think you could put it in a note.)

Y Really glad you liked it. :) Have taken up your suggested phrasing in turn... would be very willing to include a note as well, how do I go about doing that?

It's very easy; just treat it like a reference, with the ref tags opening and closing it. Then you could say, "See here [with a link] for YouTube clip." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, done. I've also (for now) done something similar with the YouTube clip of the episode with the missing song -- will keep looking for a proper cite on that one tho. Shoebox2 talk 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Educational goals

1st sentence: I'm not sure what you mean by "curriculum". I suggest that you go back to the source and describe what it says about it.

Y From the context of the source the specific reference is to a formal teaching lesson plan, such as would be applied by government authority to UK grade-school settings. Asked if the show is consciously following 'the school curriculum', the interviewee (Jenner) essentially laughs and says no, they're just out for the funny. I frankly have no idea how to summarize this concisely and was hoping the info at the 'curriculum' article would do the job for me. ETA: Have now attempted a rewrite myself along the lines suggested.

3rd paragraph: needs a source.

Y So you're not going to let me off the hook on this one, eh? *pauses hopefully, while making doe eyes* ... Fine. :) Will need to go back and review a few things, but that should be doable. ETA: Reviewed and done.

Perhaps most explicitly, both a sketch and later song champion Scots-Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole, casting her as an undeservingly forgotten heroine in the shadow of Florence Nightingale. Incomplete sentence; please fix. "Song champion"?

Y The sentence is actually complete, just maybe obscure phrasing-wise ('song' and 'sketch' are the nouns, 'champion' is the verb). Have reworded it a bit more conventionally.

In addition, a deliberate attempt was made to counteract what the producers saw as the traditionally male-dominated view of their subject by highlighting distinctively strong, active female historical figures, such as Boudicca, Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I, along with songs detailing women's work on the British homefront during WWII and the British women's suffrage movement. Guess what? Long and wordy. How about: "In addition, the producers consciously counteracted what they saw as the traditionally male-dominated view of history by highlighting strong, active female historical figures, such as Boudicca, Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I. They also wrote songs about women's work on the British homefront during WWII and the British women's suffrage movement."

Y Right, so I clearly have a problem. :) I can't help it, short sentences tend to feel stiff and boring to me. Your suggestion here, however, doesn't, and so has been happily adopted mostly as-is.

The association with a proven and popular children's brand enabled the TV series to deflect any serious controversy regarding potentially sensitive subjects, on the assumption that they had thus already been presented to children without any overt ill effects. And again. How about: "The association with a proven and popular children's brand enabled the TV series to deflect controversy regarding sensitive subjects because they had thus already been presented to children without any overt ill effects."

Y Sure, again, makes sense. High time I realised this isn't my blog. :)

Cast

1st sentence, 2nd paragraph: replace "otherwise" with "in addition"; it just reads better, I think.

Y Done.

Outside this need to maintain factual accuracy, the performers were given ample leeway to improvise. Again with the prepositional phrase. How about: "The performers were given ample leeway to improvise, as long as they maintained factual accuracy."

Y Much better phrasing, adopted as-is.

Last sentence in section: Did they create both projects just so they could continue working together, or just Bill? Did they work on other projects together?

Y They created both Yonderland and Bill explicitly so they could continue working together as a troupe. Have reworded that a bit for more clarity.

I'm almost done, but I'll stop here for now. I may have more time to finish the prose review, and start on the source review, day after tomorrow. Again, thanks for your patience with how slow this has been. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries -- I'm thinking I should be thanking you for your patience with me, at this point. I am learning lots about writing for an encyclopedia, honestly, and am carefully squirrelling same away for future use. In my defense, I did have a couple of veteran editors go over the rewrite prior to moving it out of my sandbox, and neither seemed particularly bothered by my prose... albeit this was after a week's worth of hard rewriting in which I removed approx. 30k words--mostly the aforementioned fancruft--from the article, so it's entirely possible they were just impressed to be able to read it at all.

At any rate, I'm confident that what we've got thus far is an improvement, and look forward to your further comments with real interest. Thanks again, Shoebox2 talk 05:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we're working towards a better article. I strongly believe that's the most important thing, and that's nothing wrong with helping my fellow editors move toward that goal. Plenty of other editors mentored me here, so I like to pay it forward. I appreciate your patience with me; it's been crazy-busy around here. I'll continue in a little bit, I promise. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate how much I've appreciated your thoroughness. As prophesied, it's been a very useful learning experience from both sides of the coin. As I mentioned above, I needed a bit of perspective knocked into me from a writing standpoint at least, and you've certainly -- not to say kindly -- provided that. I'm rereading the result and am really, honestly impressed with how much of an improvement it really is. Much obliged. Shoebox2 talk 23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: You don't need the word "serious".

Y Agreed, removed.

Reviewing the third series, Clare Heal of The Express agreed that "There's no particular target audience but pretty much anyone of any age will find something in there for them", specifically praising the show's "spot-on spoofs of modern telly". Awkward wording. How about: "Clare Heal of The Express, in her review of the third series, praised the show's "spot-on spoofs of modern telly" and agreed that "There's no particular target audience but pretty much anyone of any age will find something in there for them".

Y Much better phrasing, used verbatim.

I just noticed, after going over this section, that it sounds like the series has ended. Bummer! Is that accurate? I ask because there's no mention of it ending in previous sections. I suggest that you add something about it earlier, or something about its status.

Y Yes, afraid so, except the couple of specials to air this year (combining a mix of old and new sketches). I don't mention specific reasons why in the article because there's never actually been a formal 'this is why we stopped' announcement -- just informal statements from producer Norris -- but the generally accepted gist seems to be that they'd just run out of facts they could make funny, and Norris at least was concerned about the quality potentially dropping off because of it. There was much lamenting across the UK when the end was announced and even more when it aired, believe me. As for an earlier mention, the lead does say right off the top that it ran for five series, with dates. Will that do? And, come to think of it, should I elaborate on those reasons why after all?

Spin-offs: You should have some prose in this section. I suggest that you include at least a few sentences about the shows.

Y Agreed, done.

Finished with prose review. Now, I'll move onto a source review. I've already seen some issues, which I'll address next. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Sorry, I forgot about the lead, which I look at last, after I've looked at the rest of the article so I can be more familiar with it.
You say that the show focuses on history up to WWII, but later on you say it handles more recent history. Please change to reflect this.

Y Done.

Last paragraph: This content doesn't appear in the article's body. I'd either add it to the body, or remove this paragraph.

Y Given that I've now added content to the 'Spinoffs' section, is the lead paragraph OK? I wouldn't be crushed to remove it, as it still has very little to do with the article, but was told that it's best practice to make mention of any associated programs in the lead.

Remember that the lead is a concise overview of the article. I suggest that you add a few sentences about how it appeals to all ages, and that it's a good example of British comedy. There's nothing in the lead about any content in the "Reception" section.

Y I've added a sentence or two as per (my understanding of) suggested. Not sure how to go about further working the 'Reception' content in beyond what I've already said re: critical praise. From what I can tell from the WP:MOS the lead is already dangerously close to overlong -- can you advise? (Maybe this is where we sacrifice the spinoff info?)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I've done a few spot checks, and they check out. (I usually do that because I figure that if what I look at works and that it's used well, I AGF that most sources are fine.)

If you're going to use the citation templates, make sure that they're complete. For example, ref 1 doesn't include the author's name. Please go through all your refs and add any and all missing information.

Y *phew* OK, all done. I wasn't able to find all the info for every ref but it's complete and consistent as I can make it.

Ref 8: YouTube clips belong in the medium tag, not publisher.

Y Fixed.

Ref 9: Personally, I don't like linking to Google books, mostly because the links tend to be undependable and often not accessible anyway, although I recognise that it's just a style choice. There are all kinds of missing information here (page number, place and date of publication, publisher).

Y Removed -- I left it in there thinking it would be nice to have an actual book as a ref, but on closer inspection it's really just the briefest of mentions, so.

Ref 24: Not the most reliable source, plus (again) it's formatted incorrectly. I suggest that you replace it with a better source, which I think should be easy because I'm sure you can another source that supports the statement easily.

Y Found the same press release being hosted by what seems like a much more respectable aggregation site. Is this OK? As you say, there're dozens of alternate cites for the bare statement itself, but I like having the extra info in the release.

Ref 28 has been removed from YouTube. (Note: using YouTube as a source isn't always looked well upon, but I think that in this case you could support using it.)

Y Found a new YouTube version. Have cited it pointedly as a DVD extra clip, hopefully that helps the credibility a bit.

Ref 36: Remember that you're not supposed to use user-generated sources. Is there another source that supports this statement? If not, I'd allow it for GA.

Y Huh, not sure who added that. As originally written, the statement was I figured already supported by the entire section immediately following. Is a cite needed beyond that? This one is just a recap of the same cited/quoted articles, so doesn't support the specific statement anyway.

Ref 64: Incorrect format.

Y Repaired.

My main problem with your sources is that they either aren't formatted correctly and that they're inconsistently formatted. I also have issues with the reliability of some of your sources. For GA, they're acceptable, but I'm not sure they will be going forward. One of the things you can do is to see if you can find better, more reliable sources for your statements. Sometimes, with articles like this one, you need to use less-reliable sources if you want comprehensiveness, so I wouldn't remove them at this point.

Y Understood, will continue to improve the reliability as suggested.

Review is now complete. Again, thanks for your patience with how long it's taken. I've had fun and I hope that we've made a better article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done on this end as well, I do hope anyway. It has been fun; you're an amazing editor to work with, and I do definitely think we've got a much better article because of it. Thanks again for all your help. :) Shoebox2 talk 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your kind words and openness. So refreshing! ;) There are a few more unresolved issues that I'll just address here at the end, to make things clearer.

Lead: I wonder if it'd be best to cut a few things. Here are some thoughts: Cut everything in the 2nd paragraph after "post-WWII", since you state that the show is based upon Western European history curriculum. 4th paragraph: Don't bother listing the awards, but keep the last sentence. Last paragraph: Just state that the show has had two spin-offs, and then list them without describing them. I dunno, you can leave or take my suggestions, up to you.

Y Ah, the ol' Gordian knot approach, works for me. :) Have reworked the header along the lines suggested.

Refs: This is being picky, I know, but the format for authors in sources is last name, first name. But good effort to make sure they're complete.

Y Done.

Once you take care of these few issues, it's good to go and I will pass to GA. Nice work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! ... And now I will collapse in an exhausted heap, in the style of the performers in the 'English Kings and Queens' video. Seriously, thanks a million, so pleased and proud I can't tell you. Shoebox2 talk 00:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, my new favorite video! I liked it so much I put it on my FB feed! ;) I'm glad jumping through hoops gives you so much pleasure! I will go and pass this now, and then we'll move forward in the GA Recruitment Centre. Give me a couple of days, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my first one after all. Give me a few more, and I've no doubt my userpage will be full of cynical userboxes. :) For the moment, it'll be nice to have some breathing space to consolidate everything I've learned. Thank you one more time for everything, and I'll look forward to going on with GA recruitment. Shoebox2 talk 17:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes from 2nd editor

Hi. Coin945 here. An on-again-off-again editor of this page. (Cleaned up much of the fancruft back in the day, but apparently added some of my own. Kudos to Shoebox for taking the reins off of me and turning my mediocre article into GA standard stuff. :D). My role no longer includes editing this page, but seeing viewing the sources I couldnt help noticing some things.--Coin945 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coin, thanks for your ongoing interest. Your help with sourcing is always welcome, however at the moment I think we've got things more or less under control. See my replies below. Shoebox2 talk 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 is a dead link.

Y Hmmmm. It still works just fine for me -- and I've tried it now in Chrome, Firefox and IE. Did you test it in a different browser? It's a very basic mp3 file, so should be playable under most standard PC/mobile circumstances. Shoebox2 talk 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd... I get the message in this image here, which reads: "video can't be played because the file is corrupt". *shrugs*--Coin945 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the problem, it's not actually a video. In Chrome and Firefox it should come up as just a basic audio player, no visual. IE used Quicktime to open it, but again, no visual. Maybe check the browser settings? Shoebox2 talk 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is discrepancy between things like: "Retrieved 11 December 2013" and things like: "Retrieved 2013-07-31".

Y Yes, that's one of the inconsistencies that as noted above I'm still in the process of fixing. Shoebox2 talk 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what referencing style guide are you following Shoebox? Not sure I'm aware of this one. The FA people will probably want it to follow one of the main ones so we may as well fix it up now.

Y As far as I can tell from WP:CITE/ES, there doesn't seem to be a particularly favoured standard, but the one in use on this page seems to follow the guidelines pretty closely. At any rate, for the moment--as per the notes from an experienced GA/FA reviewer above--I'm just trying to ensure all cites are as complete as possible, which should be easy enough to build on in the event the article does move to FA review and encounters specifically concerned editors there. :) Shoebox2 talk 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 67 (http://www.liontv.com/London/About/Awards) was always intended to be a placeholder for notable sources for each individual award. It started off referencing about 20 or so, and then someone (Cocolacoste?) started collecting those individual sources. The remaining 4 probably need their own sources rather than that list from LionTV.com.

Y From the edit history (including Coco's efforts) it appears there were originally individual sources for most if not all of the individual awards, before someone swopped them out wholesale for the LionTV link. I agree that although it's not apparently a GA requirement each award should ideally have its own cite, and if you can find the remaining ones, please do. ETA: Never mind, found them myself. In fact, three were already covered by an existing BAFTA reference. Shoebox2 talk 13:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]