Talk:The Apprentice (UK Series Two)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Apprentice (UK Series Two) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 19, 2008

The The Apprentice UK WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to The Apprentice UK, and The Apprentice (UK Series Two) has been identified as one of these articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
TV This is a talk page for discussion of the article about The Apprentice (UK Series Two). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not The Apprentice (UK Series Two) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something".

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

Contents

[edit] New Banners

The Apprentice Series 1 and 2 has its own banners! Dalejenkins 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offence but I've reverted your addition (with the exception of the image). I really don't think we need a large box which tells us that all but one contestant was fired. The candidates are already named immediately below this infobox, and the hyperlinks you've used in the infobox won't work (since the candidates bios aren't in distinct headings). The box therefore adds nothing to the article. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Candidate Biographical Information

I have included some of the candidates dates of birth just to give more information about them. Not all however could be obtained.


[edit] Article Name

I don't think this is quite the right title for the page. The show isn't called "The Apprentice 2". I think "The Apprentice (UK series two)", "The Apprentice (second UK series)", or somesuch would be better. I will move it in the next day or two unless anyone pipes up with major objections. Suggestions on what the prefered form is, gratefully received. Jamse 23:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the show is presented differently from]] the US version. You won't get any complaints from me. --Destron Commander 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Jamse


I met Syed on Thursday on the Docklands Light Railway. He was a nice guy.

He wouldn’t give away who has won. All he did say was that after the Car task the show had calmed down, well with Jo gone, yes, that's a given.

I did mention how he has been portrayed badly in the editing of the show. From my first impression of meeting him, I have to agree.

I’m sure at some point he might read some of these posts. So Syed if you wouldn't mind getting in touch. To verify it is you would you describe what I had tied around my neck (colour)? I have an interesting business idea for your company.

With me being from the Isle of Man with its zero percent corporation tax scheme and my business contacts here, it might be useful to talk to me sometime. I have actually formed my own IT company and in any case I might require your service. For security reasons I am giving out an email address I use on forums. manxrugby@gmail.com

Please do not ignore this post Syed, although I really think that it is worth your time.

[edit] Contents list

I really think the word 'fired' shouldn't be placed next to names in the contents list (and hence the section titles) as it appears before the spoiler template and makes avoiding spoliers pretty much impossible. I would also move the table listing the firings much further down the article, perhaps after the candidate bios, but I don't know how to do this. 84.65.218.55 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul and Michelle leave!!!!

On the note about the last two Apprentice shows, no source is given for this information. Plus it is badly formatted.

Shouldn't this be deleted, or at least given a citation?

--Prophile 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: It's gone now, but I do agree re the (fired) marks on people's names.

[edit] Week 9 - Dramatic tension

I've removed and arranging to meet somebody at the Tower Bridge but instead going to the train tracks and ending up losing the buyer - bad grammar and badly formatted. Also I don't think this is true? Was it Tower Bridge?

Garethpeate

As I recall it was a bridge over the River Thames (so clearly not a small railway bridge), but not the Tower Bridge. Can't remember which it was. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It was Wandsworth Bridge. They were covering Battersea - remember. Jooler 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually quite a stupid mistake for a Londoner to make. If in London you say Wandsworth Bridge - or Lambeth Bridge or Waterloo Bridge or whatever - the default assumption is that you're talking about a bridge over the Thames. BTLizard 09:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

OK, I'm rather annoyed that the ending of this series has been spoiled for me.

The "(fired)" and "(hired)" suffixes on the section titles are unnecessary and in my opinion misplaced. The titles should be descriptive and concise - which means just the candidate's name. There is a later table which adequately shows when each candidate was fired.

Unless anyone can suggest why they should stay I'd like to remove the suffixes in 24 hours or so.

Cm6051 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems they've been removed in the current version, but can I just say that I actually removed them a long time ago but some idiot (user 199.111.230.195) seemed to think this was vandalism and reverted it to an older version, probably without even looking at the discussion page. User:81.77.246.71|81.77.246.71 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warning should be moved up the page a little. The warning actually comes right after the line 'It was won by Michelle Dewberry in an episode broadcast on 10 May 2006.' which totally gives away the ending already! I'm going to move it. Doctor Moley 13:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa Tilley

It's not strictly necessary, but I included that Alexa's employer, Capgemini were formerly called Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, as it seems to make it even more unbelievable that she couldn't add up on the Thames Festival task, considering she came from one of the biggest accountancy companies in the world..?

As I said, not entirely necessary... here to discuss.. User:Garethpeate

On another note (different user here btw) she came to my school today and revealed a few facts about the way she thinks the BBC coverage was responsible for the failures of her team. May be sour grapes but it also may be worth a smalls ection


[edit] Ruth 'lying' on her CV

Did she really? Ive just watched the ep like thousands of others but i dont think she was 'blatantly lying in her cv' as a new edit suggests? Misrepresenting herself perhaps but i dont think she was lying as such. Tyhopho 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  I've edited it so that this is more neutral 86.131.58.151 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ruth

It appears as though the section on "Ruth Badger" has been vandalised. Could i ask for it to be fixed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.112.16 (talk • contribs) .

Done. Please sign using ~~~~ on talk pages! haz (user talk) 20:44, 10 May 2006

[edit] Candidate profiles

Something needs to be done about these - variable lengths and some lacking in detail (there being more on personal websites). Some also have reasons why they were fired and when, while others still read like the start of the series. Perhaps someone can update them? User:Michaelrccurtis

[edit] Candidate bios

I've just massivley overhauled the article, adding all the candidate biographical information into a table, along with the websites which were listed under external links. I took the opportunity to remove a huge amount of the personal opinion in the biographies, since this is an encyclopedia and we should stick to verifiable facts. For that reason, I also removed the "dramatic tension" for each of the weekly tasks. Such comments were entirely a personal opinion, and made the article read like a review of the series, which as an encyclopedia article it should not be. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the long list of names under the picture

we really dont need that - there is a perfectly good summary of each episode further on down the article Tyhopho 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed

why can there be a Michelle Dewberry page and not Syed Amhed page? Bobo6balde66 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because she won the competition? 129.11.77.198 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Should the Sun's revelations today be included about Syed fathering Michelle's baby?--Darrelljon 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Shouldn't the photo of Sir Alan with the winner appear after the spoiler warning? --88.111.136.61 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

What would be the point of moving the character lists into a separate article? It's not as though this one is too long, and it wouldn't make sense without the character list - that's the most encyclopedic thing about the article! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite templates

<ref name='episode'>{{cite episode |title=Episode |episodelink=The Apprentice (UK Series Two)# |series=The Apprentice Series Two |serieslink=The Apprentice (UK Series Two) |network=[[BBC]] |station=[[BBC Two]] |airdate= |season=2 |number=}}</ref>

<ref name='if'>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-08-25 |date= |publisher=The Internet Forum }}</ref>

Just using for reference, trying to get the article up to GA! Dalejenkins | 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I have quick-failed the good article nomination due to a lack of reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)