Talk:Too Old for This Shift

Try for GA status?

@Soaper1234: What do you think about putting the article up for Good Article status? It could have a few images added but an absence of images should not affect the article's potentiality of being a Good Article. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: Hi, great idea but as well as a couple of images here and there, I think the production section needs to be improved with more information and detail. A good example of Good Article episode article is Episode 523 (Neighbours). Soaper1234 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a good picture of Pam St Clement by me that you could use ;-) anemoneprojectors 14:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Fab idea, thanks AP! @ElectrodeandtheAnode: Cast images would be good idea considering the amount of cast returns the episode had! Soaper1234 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm only saying that because the photo is by me ;-) But cast images would be a good idea, if they can be fitted in. anemoneprojectors 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be great if we could, AnemoneProjectors, thank you. Definitely agree on the addition of a few cast images Soaper1234. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode and AnemoneProjectors: I was thinking images of actors featured (like Pam St. Clement) so using that image would be good. Soaper1234 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: If you wouldn't mind, I would like to nominate this article for GA status if only to find out how it needs improving. Before doing this, I wanted your permission as it is your article after all. Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: no objections; go ahead. The article certainly looks like it has the potential to be a GA. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: Brilliant thanks! Soaper1234 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Too Old for This Shift/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Grabbing this for a review. I will put up my comments by the end of the week by the latest. I am not familiar with this show at all so this will be an interesting and fun read. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you for choosing it. Soaper1234 - talk 06:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would separate the first sentence in the lead’s first paragraph, with the separation staring at the “was broadcast” part to avoid a run-on sentence and make it more approachable for a reader.  Done. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• You use the word “episode” four times in close proximity in the first sentences of the lead so I would suggest some variation there. Same goes for the word “accident”, which is repeated twice in close proximity.  Done
• The final sentence of the lead’s first paragraph is rather long and contains a lot of information so I would suggest breaking this down into multiple sentences. While doing this, I would also suggest clarifying what you mean by “the aftermath of the accident” and “a major accident” as those are rather vague terms. As someone who has never seen the show, I am confused by what this means.  Done
• According to the manual of style, the plot section for an episode article should be no more than 400 words. However, since this appears to be more a film-like episode in terms of length, I would say that this section should adhere more the manual of style for film, which says a plot section should be between 400 and 700 words. The current plot section in the article clocks in at 767 words, so I would recommend that you try to cut it back to 700 words to satifisy the manual of style guidelines.  Done. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• For the Plot section, please use the character’s full name upon their first reference and then wikilink them to the respective article. I would think that the characters should be linked on their first reference (in the plot section) as opposed to the cast section.  Done. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I do not believe that digital download subsection is necessary and would eliminate it altogether. I do not think that a one sentence subsection is particularly useful for a reader.  Done - merged into promotion and broadcast. Soaper1234 - talk 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I would combine the second and third paragraphs of the promotion and broadcast section to make it flow better and avoid a choppy, one-sentence paragraph.  Done
• It may be helpful to include information on the ratings after the episode directly after this one to note if the ratings increased or decreased at all.  Done
• Just a clarification question, but are there any additional reviews for the episode? - That was all the reception that could be located to my knowledge. There isn't really loads of sources out and about for Casualty, I'm afraid. Soaper1234 - talk 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think it would be helpful to include a topic sentence for the critical reception section to give the reader a better understanding of the reviewers’ response to the episode. - You may have to expand on this point. The first three references are all based on Twitter feedback, which is summarised in the first sentence and Marshall's review was summarised a positive ("praised the episode"). Soaper1234 - talk 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• The italics and non-italics for some of the works/publishers in the references section is a little off. BBC Online should not be intalics and Digital Spy and Daily Star and The Sun should be in italics.  Done

Wonderful work with this article. I will pass this when my comments are addressed. It was a very interesting read so I will definitely check this show out in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments. Soaper1234 - talk 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Plot

@Aoba47: as someone who has made a lot of contributions to the article (and wrote an original plot summary, which was overwritten and severely bloated), I just thought I would get involved in the plot summary issue, and see if my suggestion would be a quick fix to the problem. With regards to the plot, I did actually write a 474 word plot a while ago, as seen in this edit, however my summary was completely overwritten to, as I have already said, a severely bloated plot, as seen in this edit here (please note now: this is not a personal attack on any editor). Would you possibly read my original plot summary from this edit and tell me if it is okay? If it is, then I will re-add my originally written plot, and at the same time address the other issue you have raised about using characters full names upon their first mention. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode and Aoba47: In response to your comments Electorde, feel free to get involved as, like you stated, this was mainly your article! To add to Aoba47's comments on the plot, I feel the plot should still take the MOS guidelines of an episode article (no more than 400 words). I will also be including the names and links to characters in my edits. Electrode, would you be able to add your plot summary and shorten it slightly? Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I started adding character names but that plot has so many issues. I'm just going to wait! Soaper1234 - talk 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• @ElectrodeandtheAnode and Soaper1234: I believe that your summary is much better than the one currently in the article. If you could possibly edit it down to 400 words, I would greatly appreciate it, but I will not be too strict on this matter. Also, make sure that every character is introduced with his or her full name when he or she is first mentioned in the prose to make everything clear to the reader. Once this is cleared up, then I will pass this. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments and wonderful work with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@ElectrodeandtheAnode and Aoba47: I have reverted the plot to its previous condition and added the wikilinks of each character. If you are still ok to cut it down Electrode, I would appreciate that! Thank you for all your help Aoba47! :) Soaper1234 - talk 17:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comment and it looks a lot better. I think it could be cut down a little bit more. I do not believe that the actors' names need to be in this section so you can remove them as they are listed in the next section. I will look through this later tonight to check the further progress on this section. I will most likely pass this once this is addressed. Do not feel pressure to get it down to the 400 mark, but more editing would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47 and Soaper1234: Plot is updated and complete. It is 419 words in length, however that is including the actors names in brackets. If these were to be excluded, the plot's word count would fall below 400. Otherwise, I have addressed the plot issues as appropriate. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome work. I will leave the actors' name up to your personal preference. I will ✓ Pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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.