Talk:Green Wing

GA Sweep (pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I trimmed a couple of irrelevant links out, and the article contains a few dodgy reference links (including one dead one: click here to check the links). However, I believe it still meets GA criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Green Wing (series 1) for featured list

For those interested, Green Wing series 1 is currently a nomination of featured list. If you wish to review the list, please do so. ISD (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DVD and Scripts

Just wanted to mention that I removed the line

The second script book is to be released on 28 September 2007, according to the Amazon.co.uk.

I've tried searching and can't find any info on the second book of scripts; also I can't find any info on the Wingin' It Convention dvd that was due to be released. If anyone has any further information, that'd be appreciated. :)londonsista | ^Prod 10:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Wing (series 2) for featured list

The second series of Green Wing was nominated for featured list status but failed, mainly because so few people commented on it. It has been put back up again so if anyone wants to comment on it, please do so. ISD (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Machine?

"Unused storylines included Alan having an eighty-year-old wife and grandchildren as old as him" - unless (to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox) there was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, this storyline couldn't have happened. Possibly this is the reason the idea was dropped, but does someone with a copy of the DVD want to double-check the audio commentary? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing this on the commentary. I think its implied the grandchildren would be the product of his ancient wife's previous partner Tphi (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't the article be changed to "...having an eighty-year-old wife and step-grandchildren as old as him"? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Character pages

A few of them are, quite simply, a mess. To use just one example, Karen Ball's page reads more like a fanzine article than an encyclopedia: the claim that she "likes rulers" is (aside from being utterly banal) presumably gleaned from nothing more than the seconds-long sequence (series 2, episode 5, about 34 minutes in) where Joanna Clore attempts an amnesty on stolen office supplies, Karen is caught with a ruler taped to each arm, and her response is "Sorry: I just like rulers" in a feeble attempt to justify the theft. There are plenty of other similar one-liners and throw-away remarks which are presented as facts about the characters who utter them.
To be honest, I question whether some of the characters actually warrant individual pages: if they were trimmed of all the guff and fancruft, they would probably end up as a couple of paragraphs - which could easily be merged with this page. However, I'm aware that there are plenty of big big fans out there, so I'm proposing (for the moment) that people get down to the task of tightening up the character pages first, rather than doing what I'm tempted to do, which is to get out a big choppy chopper and go mad like a... oh I dunno, like a madman in a butcher's shop. Or something. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One year on and no response - I've tagged the offending articles as non-notable: I'm going to give it another two weeks and then propose their deletion ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody's put forward an argument for them to remain, so I've turned the pages for Naughty Rachel, Kim Alabaster and Karen Ball into redirects to this page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

East Hampton Hospital Trust

Hi all, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Hampton Hospital Trust was merge to this article. Considering that this is a good article, I don't want to merge the content myself, seeing as I'm unfamiliar with the topic. Just wanted to let you know about this so that any useful content can be merged. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretentious?

Is it just me or do the terms "commedia dell'arte" and "lazzi", which both describe aspects of Italian theatre, not apply here? It just sounds like somebody was trying too hard to drop some Italian theatre into any article they could. Tainted Deity (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - removed ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mac"

Couple of points. Firstly, "Macartney" seems an unlikely spelling - I'm sure "MacCartney" (or "MacArtney") would be a more likely spelling / capitalisation: does anyone know if this is indeed the spelling used for Mac? And secondly, as I've noted in the discussion page for his own article, UK surgeons tend to have the title "Mr." rather than "Dr." - does anyone have a compelling reason for me not to change his title? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Graffiti

How is it that a "Good Article" on a Mid-Important rating can have such blatant graffiti ("loltingz" just randomly inserted in a sentence) not only for 9 months, but with 28 non-bot edits being made without anyone noticing? Shealer (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange character descriptions

I'm surprised by the character descriptions as they stand and have changed a couple of them. Naughty Rachel loves sex, but was described as having a "perverted nature", surely a harsh value judgement for a character meant to be enjoying life to the utmost. "Sociopath" was the word given to describe Sue White! There is a remarkable lack of anything suggesting humor in the whole article, and there is a fair amount of editorializing, particularly on the character pages. I know it's been a few years now since the show was on, but it's running in the U.S. now on Hulu and is getting attention, so I may come back and try to improve it a bit if no one minds. There hasn't been any real attention given the article in some time. --TEHodson 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)