Talk:Sherlock Holmes/to do

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Restructure and reflow prose. Present article reads like a random trivia bowl in places, and has very unbalanced sections and subsections.
  • I think this is largely done now, the sections are now quite well balanced, though there is still scope for improvement. Samatarou 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Minor weeding. Unlike the mention of cryptanalysis, the picture of the dancing men is subtrivial and should go. Other "throw-away" facts may need to get the axe as well.
• Factor out the lists to list articles so we can annotate them: what sort of stories is Neil Gaiman writing of Holmes? In what movie did George C. Scott portray Holmes, and in what way?
  • The answer to the George C. Scott question is "They Might Be Giants" (1971)

NOTE from londonlinks: The above suggestions are even more trivial than the subject matter referred to. [1] - he plays someone who believes he is Sherlock Holmes - although the character isn't called that.

• Make a clearer separation between canon, adaptation of canon, and non-canon.
  • This seems ok now.Samatarou 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• The story list is quite detailed, and breaking up the flow of the article. We should float material like this to the end, or split it off to a separate article
  • Done. (I have merged the list (bibliography) with the one as the end. Previously there were two main sections entitled "bibilography".) Samatarou 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• The detailed procedural "course" on logic (complete with mathematical symbols) could use some friendly rewriting.
• (contentious) "Holmesian speculation" as a topic is good. Dumping every author's specific speculations on the reader is not. This sort of fannish/non-canon material makes for poor reading, may also warrant its own article.
  • Done. (See "splitting the article" comments below)Samatarou 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)