Talk:It Sticks Out Half a Mile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The first broadcast was on BBC Radio 4 with repeats on BBC Radio 2. The "correction" of this sentence was wrong so I've corrected it back. Lee M 03:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved from the article:

More on TV remakes to follow

BillyH 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First Broadcast Dates[edit]

This section does not contain any sources: The website http://www.britishcomedy.org.uk/comedy/isoham.htm and http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/i/it/it_sticks_out_half_a_mile.html (listed at the bottom of the article) have some of the same dates, but there are some differences. Does anyone know where these dates came from? Thi81.105.187.71 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I am not clear why this is in Category:Lost BBC episodes. The article would seem to suggest all the radio episodes now exist - is it the unbroadcast BBC TV pilot that is missing and if so does an unbroadcast episode count for the category? Dunarc (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link[edit]

The link to Vivienne Gapes actually sends you to a completely different person. Whoever puts in hyperlinks in these articles should really check them out first: this is far from the first time I see this.

2806:2F0:7000:4242:2180:48C8:BB59:B63B (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:It Sticks Out Half a Mile/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lotsw73 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article based on the Good Article criteria and relevant guidelines. This article is quite interesting and well-written, so hopefully my review will be out soon. Spinixster (chat!) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox: Seems okay, but I'd switch to an official logo if there is one. If so, the image can be moved to the Cast section.  Done
  • Lead: No issues, but I'd recommend adding more information on things such as production, release and reception in order to adequately summarize the article more, per MOS:LEAD.  Comment: Has this been properly addressed now?  Yes I think it's good. Spinixster (chat!) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot:
    • The year is 1948,... Recommend changing to In 1948,... per MOS:PLOT.  Done
    • I'd recommend briefly explaining the plot to Dad's Army as fit, as the show is a sequel that takes place in the same universe and readers who don't know about Dad's Army would want some context. See Better Call Saul#Premise for an example.  Done
    • There is no need to say who plays who in this section, as it has already been explained in the cast and characters section.  Done
    • There is no need to clarify that the setting is fictional as it's already assumed to be a fictional world per MOS:PLOT.  Done
  • Cast and characters
    • I suggest adding the guest characters here as well and separate the characters under subheadings like "Main", "Recurring" and "Guest".  Done
  • Background
    • This isn't really a Background section per se; I'd imagine a Background section being about the prior series, Dad's Army. However, parts of the Development section already suffice for this. I'd change the section name into "Production".  Done
    • The pilot episode, titled "Loyal Support", starred Arthur Lowe and John Le Mesurier reprising their roles of Captain Mainwaring and Sergeant Wilson respectively,... Add comma after John Le Mesurier.  Done
    • The above sentence is also quite long. I'd split the sentence after "respectively".  Done
    • If ratings were strong, the possibility of adapting the series for television was discussed. I don't think this is grammatically correct, since one half of the sentence is in conditional tense while the other is past tense. Try something like The possibilities of adapting the series for television if the ratings were high were discussed. (English is not my strong suite, so feel free to adjust if needed)  Done
    • Snoad and Knowles were still writing the rest of the scripts for a full series when, on 15 April 1982, Arthur Lowe died. Remove "still" - the sentence would still convey the same meaning, and "still" might be a MOS:REALTIME violation.  Done
    • ... The series was shelved, and the existing pilot episode was left unbroadcast. Due to the death of Arthur Lowe, the original pilot was not broadcast and the tape wiped, but co-writer Snoad retained a copy which he later returned to the BBC. This is repetitive, so I'd merge the sentence together. Something like The series was shelved, the existing pilot episode was left unbroadcast and the tape was wiped, but co-writer Snoad retained a copy which he later returned to the BBC.  Done
    • Perhaps the Planned second series section and Legacy section can be merged? They have very similar ideas and are short sections.  Done
      • Additional comment from the future: The prose of the two sections should also be merged together so it's less repetitive.  Done
    • Watch out for MOS:EDITORIAL issues (words like indeed, etc.)  Done
  • Episodes
    • Per MOS:TVPLOT, I'd move this section above the Background section.  Done
    • The tone of the summaries here violates what I think is a mixture of WP:TONE, WP:EDITORIAL, and WP:INUNIVERSE. The summaries should be written neutrally and from a real-world perspective.  Done
  • Release
    • In a preview article for the Radio Times by Robert Ottaway,... & A second Radio Times article by David Gillard,... These paragraph seem irrelevant to the actual release.  Done (Removed)
    • Again, watch out for MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:DOUBT issues.  Done
    • As of November 2023, the first seven episodes of the series, plus the original pilot episode, are available for listening on Spotify and Audible. This sentence is unsourced.  Done (Removed)
  • Reception
    • According to producer Martin Fisher, the series was "quite popular" with the public, and as such, a second series was commissioned. However, the series was cancelled due to Le Mesurier's death in 1983. This is repetitive; it is already mentioned in the Background section.  Done
    • Are there any contemporary reviews in newspapers, books, etc.? They should be included. WP:TWL and Google Scholar may be useful here.  Comment: It's a fairly obscure series this one; I haven't been able to find any other reviews.
Update: I've searched Newspapers.com via TWL and found this short review and another contemporary piece, which, with a Wikipedia Library account, you can access. Spinixster (trout me!) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I will respond to these queries on the reviewer's talk page. Lotsw73 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done These resources have now been added throughout the article. Lotsw73 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is overusing direct quotations; per WP:RECEPTION: Consider whether each word serves the paragraph's point. Reception sections that use too many quotes may be treated as copyright violations.  Comment: Is this better now?  Yes Definitely. Spinixster (chat!) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Television adaptations
    • No issues.
  • Sourcing
    • The article relies a lot on British Comedy Guide. Based on my research, the source is tertiary but usable; I'd suggest switching to a better source if possible.
    • A lot of the sources are primary, which should be replaced with secondary ones whenever possible.
  • Copyvio: 64.6% similarity, but they're mostly common phrases and attributed quotes.

Overall, the article is well-written, there's just some issues. I will put this on hold while I do a spot check since that process is taking longer than I expected. Spinixster (chat!) 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that there are some WP:CINS issues as well, so that should be fixed. Spinixster (chat!) 03:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that It Sticks Out Half a Mile was a radio sequel series to Dad's Army that followed three of the main characters in their attempts to renovate a seaside pier in post-war Britain? Source: [18] (Pertwee 2009, p.178)
    • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Lotsw73 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Lotsw73 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough (promoted to GA on March 30), Earwig returns 40.1% (on close review, all appear to be false positives), hook is inline cited to book by a Bloomsbury imprint which is RS but inaccessible by me. Additional checks: long enough, NPOV, no image to check, no QPQs required, hook is interesting. Good! Chetsford (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It_Sticks_Out_Half_a_Mile&oldid=1216487854"