Talk:Blackadder Goes Forth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Blackadder Goes Forth has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 16, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


is this a season of a tv show or it's own series altogether?Joeyramoney 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a series. We don't really do seasons here in the UK (although there are doubtless some exceptions, not that I can actually think of any). Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess technically it is classed as a "season", although it would be perhaps more accurate to describe it as a sequel. Unlike most sitcoms, each series of Blackadder is almost entirely different, with a new situation in a different time period, all-new characters, etc. Most sources (BBC, IMDb, etc) classify it as a completely different series. The characters of Blackadder and Baldrick are the only true constants, and their personalities are also noticably different in each version. Bob talk 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of both. How do you draw the line? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess series, since that's how it's reffered to in British English, and as a British tv show I think we should use British English in it. Some sort of comparison may be in order, however - but how to avoid violating WP:OR? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry about that - blasted silent edit conflicts.) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(It's OK, I thought I was the only one to get annoyed by that :-) Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Good Article Review

This is a very well done aricle and there are only two minor points that need to be adressed to allow this to qualify for Good Article status

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

This is a very well done aricle and there are only two minor points that need to be adressed to allow this to qualify for Good Article status. I will place on hold until the two issues of concern are addressed:

  1. Criteria 2a - There are some good references, but there is much in the article desribing incidents from the series and this should have reference(s). This could be a corectly formatted reference to the series itself and/or a book of the scripts. These would be primary sources as per WP:RS#Reliable_sources but these sources are perfectly valid when used in conjuction with other sources, such as are already in the article.
  2. Criteria 6c - This is a minor but essential issue. For all images used you must have fair use rationale for this particular article on the image page and hidden text refering to this information in the article nezt to the image.

My other suggestions for improvement (not required to achieve good article status, but would be useful/required if seekign featured article status in the future):

  • More references and inline citations.
  • Listing of DVD/Video releases in different markets.
  • As there is only six episodes in the series a listing of them in the prose (not list) form in the "Episodes" secition would be appropriate. Keep other info in main article.

-Waza 11:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - hopefully I've addressed your concerns. I've added citations to the episodes on the BBC DVDs, as hopefully these are a suitable source - I'm afraid I don't have a scriptbook, but if somebody else does and can add some more specific references, that would be excellent. I agree with your later suggestions as well - certainly a few more inline citations would be useful. I've added a prose list of episodes, although I'm not sure whether I'm correct in linking the puns they are based on (as this might just be my interpretation), or whether it would be more useful just to link the episodes. Bob talk 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Criteria 2a (References) - This has been addressed sufficient to the level of good article. I still have some ideas for improvement to featured article level based on the model of main Blackadder article, and I do own a copy of the script book. However I am concerned about the ethics of having the good article review editing the article so do not want todo any edits myself until after the good article nomination is completed.
  • Criteria 6c (fair use rationale) - This has not been addressed As I said before this is somewhat pedantic but is required. In fact the images could be deleted from Wikipedia if this is not done. As per the fair use rationale:

Justification should be done in two places. First, add the following hidden text in the article:

<!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->

Second, add a detailed fair use rationale to the image description page in addition to the fair use tag. This is required.

-Waza 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - I've added the hidden fairuse text to the article, although I had already added fair-use rationales specific to this article to the images (unless I'm missing something). Bob talk 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article passed. I will admit while I checked both the first time, when I reviewed again I checked hidden test first and did not look at the images when there was nothing there refering to them. I have update full template to fully passed. - Waza 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last dialogue

Does somebody know why in the last dialogue of "Goodbyeee" Baldrick remarks "Ooh, that's a nasty splinter on that ladder, sir! A bloke could hurt himself on that!"? It seems completely pointless as any of the characters seem to listen or care about it. Does it have a meaning? --Midasminus 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just a joke that he's concerned that somebody might hurt themselves on something trivial, when they're about to go over to certain death? Bob talk 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Although it is generally up to standard, there are a few minor issues that may need addressing before Blackadder Goes Forth is confirmed as a Good Article. I have listed these below:

  • Lead: this should be expanded to meet the criteria at WP:LEAD. Specifically, an article lead is intended to be a summary of the article rather than an introduction to it, and should mention every major point covered by the rest of the article. I would recommend perhaps a sentence or two per section. Also, there is no real requirement for references in the lead, as those points should ideally be referenced in the relevant section underneath where they are dealt with in more detail.
  • References: there are one or two paragraphs that are currently unreferenced and could do with citations, but I think generally this is good. However, the quotation at the end of the Plot section definitely needs citing.
  • Templates: we recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to format references.

I also fixed a few things as I was going through - for future reference (and in case I missed any!):

  • The Manual of Style recommends not using decorative quotations in articles, as they are intended only for call-outs. The blockquote markup is more appropriate. Also, when blockquote is used there is no need for quotation marks (it's either one style or the other).
  • emdashes are unspaced if used, and...
  • so are in-line citations.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA sweep (pass)

Thank you for addressing the points above; I have now passed this reassessment (apologies for the delay - busy time of year!). The article history has been updated to reflect this review. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)