| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to see if I can get this article up to GA status, but I wanted a fresh pair of eyes to look over it and offer any criticism first. My main concern is that the article may not be broad enough, but I think I'm close to exhausting all I can find on this subject. Also, are the episode summaries too long? The one for "P.I.G" is about twice the length of others, but then much more happens in that one. I welcome any other advice and feedback. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I found this interesting, though it needs a bit more work to reach GA. I don't think the plot summaries are too long, but I had trouble following them because I kept confusing the actors with the non-actors. However, I think this could be easily remedied, as noted below. Here are some other thoughts:
Possibilities for expansion
- Have any cultural critics, television critics, psychologists, lawyers, or others commented on the effects of prank shows in general? There have been quite a few similar shows such as Candid Camera and Beadle's About. Has any critic commented on how this show is like or unlike other prank shows?
- Aside from a chance at fame, what were the non-actors promised? Did they get paid to be in the show? Did they sign contracts?
- Were the writers in the separate room part of the television show? How did the television audience know about the writers and the room? Did the show cut away to the separate room from time-to-time? It's not clear to me how the writers controlled the actors or why the writers would be on the premises at all. Were the writers controlling the actors in real-time by talking to them somehow? I don't think the existing article makes these technical aspects of the show quite clear.
Images
- I wonder if it might not be better to merge the casting and filming subsections of the article to make more space for the image of the cast. As it is, File:Bedsitcomcast1.jpg overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button, at least on my computer screen. MOS:IMAGES suggests keeping images entirely within the sections they illustrate. The merged subsection could be named "Casting and filming".
Done
Identification
- In reading the plot summaries, I found it difficult to remember who was acting and who was "real" and had to keep referring to the list of actors in the first paragraph of "Episodes". I wonder if it would be helpful to include (actor) in parentheses after the first use of an actor's name in each of the plot summaries. In "Worst Case Scenario", this would appear as "Mel (actor) leaves the flat for a while... " None of the non-actors in the remaining parts of this particular plot description would need to be labeled, and Mel wouldn't need to be labeled except on that first instance. In the plot summary for "A Mother's Love", two actors, Paul and Rufus, would need parenthetical labels on first use, and the first sentence might be better recast as "The group are visited by Mrs. Gibbon, the mother of Paul (actor), who develops a romantic interest in Rufus (actor)... " to avoid awkwardness caused by the possessive combined with the label.
- Done
Lead
- "Its hook was that three of the participants... ". - Link "hook" to Narrative hook? The use of "hook" in this sense means that the TV audience was made aware of the trickery at the outset. Is this accurate? Should something about that be added to the article?
- Done Yes, the TV audience were aware of this from the start. I have hopefully tried to make this clearer in the article.
- "who criticised the show's storylines and its "deeply offensive" premise." - Is "premise" the right word? Would "trickery", "manipulation", or something else be more accurate? Did Palmer (the cited critic) actually use the word "premise" to describe what offended him?
- Done Palmer used "idea", rather than "premise", so I have changed the sentence to reflect this.
Concept
- "The show that was conceived, Bedsitcom, combined these two elements by featuring three members of the public being placed in extraordinary situations by three actors who were being directed by a team of writers in a separate room." - Slightly ungrammatical and a bit too wordy. Suggestions: "Bedsitcom, combined these two elements in a show featuring three members of the public placed in extraordinary situations by three actors directed by writers in a separate room."
- Done
Filming
- "After selecting the six members of the public to feature in Bedsitcom, filming began in May 2003[11] and lasted for approximately seven weeks." - Tighten to "Filming began in May 2003 and lasted for about seven weeks"?
- Done
Episodes
- "After Bob, Dave and Shirine had discovered the true nature of the show at the end of episode four... " - Maybe "learn" or "are told" would be more accurate than "discovered".
- Done
A Mother's Love
- "The writers' initial idea is to make Bob so uncomfortable that he would leave... " - "Will leave" instead of "would leave"?
- Done Whoops. Should've caught that myself.
The Third Degree
- "the interviewer receives a phone call from Rufus's father, who asks to speak with him son." - "His" rather than "him"?
- Done Another silly mistake.
Scrotal Support
- "During this episode, the group discover a pair of women's underwear in Rufus's laundry, who confesses to occasionally wearing them and wonders how he can broach this to everyone else." - The laundry isn't a "who". "Broach" isn't the right word since everyone already knows. Suggestion: "During this episode, the group discover a pair of women's underwear in Rufus's laundry. He confesses to occasionally wearing them and wonders how he can explain this to everyone."
- Done
- "Rufus intends to confess his secret over dinner... " - This is confusing since he has already confessed, according to the second sentence of this plot summary.
- Done The plot summary was wrong; I have rewritten it.
See also
- Is such a broad portal of any use here?
- Done Deleted it.
Other
- The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one link (Andrew O'Connor), that does to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.
- Done Really should've found that myself...
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments - I scanned this as I was intrigued by the title. I agree with all of the above comments, and have a few of my own.
- I would define what a bedsit is - most American readers will not get the reference
- Done
- I think the lead needs to make it clearer that there were four episodes with each of the three "real" participants and that the actors were in all eight episodes.
- Done
- I was not clear if Paul's mother was portrayed by an actress or was his real mother. Also was she in on the joke or not (was she playing a role - sounds like she was)?
- Done
- Or was the chancellor in on the joke (or played by an actor)?
- Done
- Did the audience see the writers? If so, were they the real writers or actors playing the writers?
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you both for reviewing this article; your feedback has been very helpful. A Thousand Doors (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)