Talk:The Black Adder/GA1

I have set out below the good article criteria, the extent to which they are met by this article, and comments for improving the article.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

N See the detailed comments below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

(c) contains no original research.

N See the detailed comments below.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Y Yes.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Y Yes.

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Y Yes.

6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images.

Y

Detailed comments

Lead

"accidentally murdered" - murder isn't accidental, killing is. Could this be made consistent with synopsis?

To a certain extent, Richard is murdered accidentally, in that he was intentionally murdered, but Edmund didn't realise it was him - I've re-worded it to "assassinated". I suspect there may be a better way to phrase it, still, though.

"eventual quest" - it's either an ongoing quest or an eventual objective, isn't it?

Clarified

"dealt comically" - "deals comically", to be consistent on tense

Rewritten

"crusades" - were long over by 1485 as far as England was concerned, is this a deliberate anachronism?

This is an anachronism - episode 2 features King Richard IV going to fight the Turks. Mentioned anachronistic nature in lead.

"featured" - "features"

Done

Synopsis

First paragraph consists of one lengthy sentence which would benefit from being rewritten in shorter sections.

Sorted into shorted sentences.

"traditional and highly debatable view of him as a hunchbacked, infanticidal monster." - bit POV, perhaps, and I feel would need sourcing.

Clarified that this is the Shakespearan interpretation.

"Edmund never took part in the battle after he arrived late and went the wrong way" - clumsy wording, could be better put

Sorted, hopefully. It's fairly trivial, so could be removed if it's a problem.

"four hundred and fifty"- per MOS#NUM, this can be rendered effectivly as 450

Sorted

"one of whom had actually been killed by his brother in the battle." - not clear what is being said here

Sorted

"imbecillic" - "imbecilic"

Sorted

"events converge with our timeline" - not sure about "our", it's a bit personal; "the true"?

Sorted

Episodes

"Each of the episodes were based on medieval themes" - mixture of numbers here, and IIRC there were several references in each episode to these themes.

These are only a rough guide to themes, I would say. They're mainly there just to provide a link to other Wikipedia articles.

Production

Remove space between refs at end of first sentence

Done

Character development

Reference to David Steel is unsourced; probably true but it's WP:OR as it stands.

Moved onto talk page until it can be sourced.

Whole section contains speculation, with weasel words ("It is interesting to note that") and "One assumes that...". It is salvageable, however.

Hopefully made it more consistant with the writers' quotations, and removed weasel words.

Cast

John Savident - no need to state his Corrie fame since it is irrelevant in this article.

Done

Title sequence and music

"The closing titles were the same sequence" - duplication of description?

Clarified.

(with the exception of the unaired pilot) - I'm assuming this had different music, but it isn't part of the series; this could be clarified.

mentioned that it's a different arrangement.

Awards

Is this the only one? Was it nominated for, e.g. a BAFTA? The viewer's poll isn't an award as such, and perhaps the section could be retitled "Awards and reception" with some additional critical commentary.

As far as I could find, the series won no further awards and definitely not a BAFTA. I don't even think it was nominated for one. Critical commentary (as far as reliable internet sources go anyway) seems to be quite thin on the ground. Contemporary reviews are going to be quite difficult to find for 1983. I'll have to have another look around later. This is definitely the least well known series, so tends to have less emphasis placed upon it (see the earlier talk page discussion), but it's difficult to say with without putting a POV on it.

Releases

Needs sourcing.

Trouble is that to clarify these I will have to link to either Amazon, BBC Shop or Play.com, which is surely a bit of an advert for each outlet.

Other

is there no better source than IMDb? It's usually considered reliable for major detail but not otherwise.

Unfortunately not, but most of the info it provides a citation for is for things like the end titles, which can be clarified by watching the episodes anyway.

Refs 4 & 10 (both Shardlow) could be merged into a named ref.

Done

--Rodhull andemu 09:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if I'm jumping the gun here - is this review completed? Bob talk 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a work in progress but I've been delayed elsewhere so I thought it better to make a start. --Rodhull andemu 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed and put on hold. --Rodhull andemu 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, some good points for improvement. I've had a go at sorting most of the problems, hopefully, and have replied after each of your points. Bob talk 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]