Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Colm 17:21, 29 March 2014 [1].

Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Shoebox2 talk 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The hit British children's sketch-comedy TV series, almost certainly destined to become a classic of children's TV and widely beloved by adults as well. I am nominating it as a FAC after having seen it through a successful GA review and working hard, under the auspices of veteran editors, to ensure it meets FA criteria. Article is a comprehensive, detailed and (if I do say it myself) well-written overview of a unique cultural phenomenon. Shoebox2 talk 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please close the current peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Done, with my apologies. Shoebox2 talk 00:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the books as a kid, and met Deary a couple of times, but I haven't ever watched this.

I'm obviously biased, but I'd still recommend it as a great show. :) Meanwhile, thank you for your detailed review and recommendations; I've made notes below and will add more as I work on them. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "affecting Great Britain and to" Do you mean Britain or the United Kingdom? What does the source say? If it says merely "Britain", it probably means to refer to the UK as a whole.
Having reviewed the source, I realised... that it doesn't say much of anything relevant to the subject, actually. Have now reworked that section to reflect (hopefully) more helpful sources, which refer to 'Britain' and 'the British Isles' respectively. I personally prefer 'Great Britain', given that 'United Kingdom' refers to a specific political entity that didn't exist during the majority of the show's timeline. Of course, I'd be open to advice from UK natives. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a constant pain. I was recently told by a customer service team that I couldn't be helped, as I'm "outside the UK"- I'm in Northern Ireland, so, barring the claims of certain political groups, I'm in the UK, but outside GB. "Britain" is a term which ambiguously refers to the UK, Great Britain or the UK minus Northern Ireland. "The British Isles" refers to the UK and the Republic of Ireland, but is a slightly politically dubious term. "Great Britain" could work, depends if they cover much of Irish (as in, the island of Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland) history; if they do, "the British Isles" could work. Alternatively, you could leave it ambiguous and just call it "British" history. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. OK, I've rewritten the header to eliminate one usage altogether (never liked that ref to 'curriculum' anyway) and--given that they don't cover much Irish history at all, weirdly enough--have left it at 'Great Britain' in the Format section. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most recent event referenced has been the 1969 Apollo 11 Moon landing." has been/was?
'Was' makes more sense in context. Change made. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a boring point, but we can't link to YouTube videos if they don't seem to have been uploaded by some kind of "official" source, as they are likely copyright violations.
Does this include sources like the BBC News and This Morning interviews as well? Assuming the YT versions to be verboten, is the material still usable as a reference even without the link, along the lines of print-only sources? Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes- we can't link to copyvios. I don't see any reason why you couldn't still cite these as reliable sources, though. Perhaps as a compromise and as a courtesy to other editors, you could provide the links in hidden comments within the citation. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Have removed the links for now (and found an 'official' audio track for the Kings & Queens song, luckily enough) and will look into this matter of hidden comments. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Have added the hidden comments as requested. Shoebox2 talk 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The producers did consider some topics intrinsically unsuited for an irreverent comic treatment, as for instance the Holocaust or the harsher details of slavery." Firstly, I'm not sure I like the claim that they're "intrinsically unsuited", as that sounds a rather non-neutral declaration. Secondly, it's unclear from the text right now whether the writers did actually include those topics, or merely considered including them.
The claim is that the producers considered the material 'intrinsically unsuited', not that it unequivocally is/was. However, it's not essential to the point either way. 'Intrinsically' removed and clarification added to the effect that these topics were actually avoided. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread; I thought you were saying "The producers considered some material that was intrinsically unsuited" rather than "The producers considered that some material was intrinsically unsuited". There's no problem with what you're saying, as long as you're clear that that is what you're saying! J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Was kind of sad at losing 'intrinsically', so have put it back in. :) Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deary, Baynton, Rickard, Jenner and Giles Pilbrow, among others, also contributed original lyrics over the course of the show's run. The results were produced by Matt Katz and arranged by Iain Farrington." Do you have a source for this?
For everything except Farrington (whose role on closer inspection seems to have been limited to the Prom arrangements), yes, I should be able to find something. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Well, I was able to find a source for the fact that other members of the writing team contributed lyrics, but not so much the individuals (unless I wanted to link to a bunch of fiddly individual lyric sheets, which... not so much). Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Video game-styled sketches are achieved using a mix of 3D animation and live-action green-screen footage. Puppeteers Eccleston and Scott Brooker build and perform Rattus Rattus and any other puppetry as needed." Again, source?
For the first bit, yes; for the second, no -- which is actually OK, as Eccleston is already noted as Rattus' performer earlier in the article (Brooker appears to only be involved with the character for the spinoff gameshow) and any other puppetry totals maybe five minutes' worth of footage over five series. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the specials: Unless these are feature-length, you should probably treat them as "Episode Titles", rather than Film Titles.
Noted, change made. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In autumn 2011, the BBC edited the footage from the show's summer Prom concert into an hourlong TV special (Horrible Histories' Big Prom Party), featuring new, specially-shot linking sketches. In addition, standalone sketches were produced for the 2012 Sport Relief benefit programme. In the same year, several sketches were commissioned as part of the BBC's live television coverage of the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, to be performed on Tower Bridge, but due to time constraints only one was aired." Again, sources?
Done, all sourced up. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The demands of filming twice as much material in the same timeframe as a standard six-episode sketch show," Why?
Meaning, why did they film twice as much material, or why such a short timeframe? If it's the former, the show simply had twelve/thirteen episodes per series to the more usual show's six. I've clarified that in the article. If the latter... not covered in the sources, unfortunately. They simply accept the timeframe as fact; my guess is it's some sort of industry standard. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recurring characters were if at all possible played by the actor who had originated the part, leading to the development of several signature roles," Do you have a reference for the claim that these are signature roles?
No (dagnabbit! I liked that phrase almost as much as 'intrinsically'!) so that's been removed. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horrible Histories was immediately greeted with critical enthusiasm." You can't cite a claim like that to a primary source. I'd want to see a claim like that sourced to a third party (preferably scholarly) look at children's television, really.
Right, will poke about a bit in Google Scholar and see what I come up with. Shoebox2 talk 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Awards and nominations" table, Horrible Histories should be italicised
Noted, change made. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DVD section is apparently completely unsourced
It is now. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I could do with another paragraph somewhere about the adaptation to a Sunday night show- there're details in the reception, but not in any of the production sections.
I know. I thus poked about a bit in the course of writing the current paragraph, but there really isn't much more info than that out there. Norris specifically notes in one source that from a production POV it was basically just a clip show with Fry's new linking material thrown in; its major claim to fame lies in the 'children's show in prime-time' angle, as covered under 'Reception'. Still have a nagging feeling there's more story there, but it's not been made available to even date, unfortunately. Shoebox2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked into the sources in detail, but the article generally looks excellent. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:The starring cast of TV series Horrible Histories arrives at the Children's BAFTAs, 27 November 2011.jpg technically needs an OTRS ticket. Personally, I'd be happy to accept a screencapture of the Facebook private message, but forwarded emails are the norm.

I've sent the email to the appropriate OTRS dept, with screenshots of the Facebook convo/pic as sent me. Hopefully this will be OK, if not I don't anticipate any difficulty in getting further permissions -- this isn't a question of damage to pro photographer, it's just a friend who's happy enough to be credited (and did have the chance to review the details of the license prior to and after posting).

File:Troublesome 20th Century.jpg needs the rationale touching up, and it seems odd that the image chosen is of the 20th century rather than one of the more traditional HH topics. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the rationale. I agree that one of the more traditional topics would be much better, will see what's out there. Shoebox2 talk 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Have looked into the matter as promised, and as a result have swapped out the '20th Century' image with much more typical examples of the same concept, using essentially the same source and rationale. (Image is now also tagged for reduction, which brings it entirely in line with TLSuda's notes below.) Shoebox2 talk 21:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Recurring characters were if at all possible played by the actor who had originated the part" - source?
I'll see if I can find one. But with respect, this is not an extraordinary claim even by FA standards, esp. since there's an extensive list of recurring characters the cast played just below it. It's a variant of a practice intrinsic to sketch-comedy, wherein characters are created on the fly and any particularly good ones preserved for future use. Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I've found a few sources that I think adequately get across the concept of these roles being exclusive to the actors in question. If this sentence is the only thing standing between me and FA certification I'll reconsider, but I do honestly think it's an acceptably encyclopedic statement in a sketch-comedy context. :) Shoebox2 talk 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes longer than c. 40 words should be blockquoted, split or shortened
I've shortened/broken up a couple of the lengthier quotes in the 'Historical Accuracy' section, the only ones I could find that went over the 40-word limit.Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website names (like guardian.co.uk) are not publishers, and even if they were you are neither using nor presenting them consistently - I'd recommend just removing them where there is already a publication name
Done, websites removed.Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than BBC News broadcast, just use BBC News
Done, 'broadcast' removed.Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17 and 18: these are inconsistent as presented, and I don't think either would be correct
  • Check for consistency in italicization: for example, sometimes you italicize Radio Times and sometimes not (italicizing would be the better choice)
Checked and corrected where necessary.Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Not so much the site, as the author, who also writes/reviews for high-quality, respected websites including the British Comedy Guide and Exeunt magazine. Thus her opinions are I feel as valid as any other quoted in the 'Reception' section. That said, I'm not irretrievably married to that particular quote; it's a fine representative example of a POV that's often applied to HH, but could be removed without harming the general point much. Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 27 and 66
  • Compare FNs 67 and 71
  • Compare FNs 77 and 82

Some significant citation cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start, will continue to tweak as needed. Shoebox2 talk 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: OK, cleanup of sources now complete, using suggestions here and other media FAs as a template. Pls advise if anything else is needed. Shoebox2 talk 16:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Living across the pond, I've never heard of this show, but I've learned much from the article. The article is well written. My only concerns were the images. The image OTRS permission has been received and I've tagged the title card to be reduced (it is not necessary to be so large as it per WP:NFCC#3b). Therefore I support this nomination. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed for updating the OTRS. I appreciate your help and support. Shoebox2 talk 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Victoriaearle - this is looking very impressive, but a few comments. No hurry!

"Lead"

  • UK children's sketch comedy television series, part of the eponymous children's history franchise > 1., seems silly but does everyone know what UK refers to? Perhaps rephrase as British or something? Not sure what to suggest (and feel free to ignore!). 2., not sure about eponymous. Has it made its way across the pond? Is that important? Maybe tone down slightly?
1. 'UK' could be clarified a bit further I agree. I've done some checking through other British TV show articles and it doesn't appear there's a standard usage, but most sitcom articles seem to use 'British', so I've gone with that. 2. Have swapped out 'eponymous' for the slightly more accessible 'of the same name'. The book series at least is fairly well-known in North America, but the spinoff franchise material seems to be mostly a homegrown phenomenon, and this TV series has never been shown in the US. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It maintains the franchise's overall irreverent but consciously accurate focus on the dark, gruesome or scatological aspects of British and other Western world history, spanning from the Stone Age to the post-WWII era, as defined and divided according to the books but combining several different eras within a single episode" > difficult sentence to get through in the lead. Can it be split?
Yes. I've rewritten this portion of the header to define this entire process a bit more clearly. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Live-action sketches – which often parody other UK TV programmes and personalities" > I think this needs a bit of tweaking because I had to stop to wonder whether a live action sketch can parody a personality?
'Personality' here is being used in the sense of 'media figure famous in their own right [ie. a news anchor, reality-show host, celebrity chef etc.], not for playing a character', but that usage is possibly a bit antiquated, and at any rate 'celebrity' covers the same concept nicely. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Background"

  • Needs a reference after the first paragraph
Reference added (and rather pleased I am to be able to sneak that scholarly ref in there, too!) Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author Deary had had a negative experience with the 2001 animated series—which had only loosely incorporated his material" > try recasting to avoid three instances of "had" in such short order, and do we need "Author Deary"? Or perhaps simply "Deary"?
  • "He eventually agreed to the new project on the condition that the new series be explicitly "horrible, funny and true". Deary himself, while disclaiming any active role in developing or creating the new series, would eventually appear in several small roles as well as contribute to the writing.[1]" > recast to avoid three instances of "new"
I've rewritten this paragraph to address both these concerns. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including a ghostly train that would carry children into the past, or a wizard storyteller who would act as their guide." > Suggest replacing the subjunctive "would". Note - I noticed this elsewhere too, so suggest checking througout.
Reworded here, and will run a double-check throughout. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should trope be linked? Not crazy about the choices we have though. Thought I'd mention, anyway.
No, I don't think any of the available articles are going to help either. :) I've swapped out 'trope' for 'convention' within the article though, might make things a bit clearer. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, but not sure that trope should go altogether. TV tropes and all. We do need an better article for that concept. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigstocke and series producer Caroline Norris, wanting to do the material full justice, used their industry contacts to put together a creative team consisting mostly of veterans of the adult UK comedy community.[2][3]" > The "wanting to do" seems a little clunky - maybe a small tweak there?
Tweaked accordingly. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked a bit more myself, but it's okay to revert. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tweaked the tweak a little, but otherwise all is good. Shoebox2 talk 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Format"

  • "The TV show carries over the initial timeline, division by historical era or civilization and associated naming scheme of the original book series, with a focus on events in or directly affecting Great Britain and to a lesser extent the larger Western world." > I'm lost here and can't parse this sentence, though the concept is clarified in subsequent sentences. This sentence needs a bit of clarifying/simplifying, I think.
Right, welcome to the single most wretchedly difficult sentence in the entire article. :) I've rewritten and rewritten that thing in an effort to simplify until I loathe the sight of it, but have made one more attempt that I think might have worked. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave it a slight tweak myself, but okay to revert. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works even better, thanks. Shoebox2 talk 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Content"

  • Perhaps most explicitly, both a sketch and later song deliberately champion Scots-Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole as a forgotten heroine in the shadow of Florence Nightingale". > I had to read twice here and wondered if it would work better if the sentence were to lead with Seacole as the subject?
Reworded for clarity along the lines suggested. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show sometimes acknowledged particularly sensitive subject matter (the Hitler Youth, for example) by having Rattus, the usually cheerfully sarcastic puppet presenter, follow up the sketch with a more sombre elaboration of the less comedic details." > Needs a reference.
Mm. I don't have a reference for the Rattus part, but do have one for the basic concept of 'not ending a sketch on a joke' (which come to think of it is the more important bit anyway). Have reworded and added ref accordingly. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Production"

  • Lots of "would" in the third para > check whether the subjunctive is necessary
Checked and largely reworded. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cast"

  • Sorry to have to ask this, but does the table need referencing?
I don't think so -- at least, none of the reviewers and/or copyeditors who've looked at the article have suggested it up to now. Personally I consider it the equivalent of a more standard sitcom's cast/character list, ipso facto verifiable at the source, and feel it can be safely treated accordingly. Granted the nature of a sketch-comedy show doesn't allow for onscreen credit for individual roles (ie. 'Mathew Baynton as Charles II'), it's still very obvious who's playing what, and hence which of those roles are recurring. This table's already been cut down from a (frankly awe-inspiring) attempt to catalogue every single role everyone listed ever played; I think the existing version, with its focus on demonstrably the most important roles, works well as a compromise. (I did think of cutting it down even further, to the most important recurring roles, but there you get into a certain amount of OR.) Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether the list at the end of the section can be prosified? Also, it's lacking a reference.
I don't know. Other than the LoG appearance, none of these are so incredibly earth-shattering as to deserve more than the mention. Also I rather like the concise clarity of the list, as opposed to a long paragraph that's inevitably just going to be a series of repetitive "[blah], playing [blah]; [blah], playing [blah]," etc. Have added references, though. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"Historical accuracy"

  • Most criticism the show has faced revolves around the accuracy, or lack ther eof, of its content" > not crazy about the "revolves around" but couldn't think of a way of rewording.
How about 'involves'? Reworded accordingly. Shoebox2 talk 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mos"

  • Check for dashes throughout - per MOS:DASH endashes are spaced and emdashes are not. Currently the article has both but should have only a single style.
  • Check MOS:NUMBERS per when to write out and when not.
  • Nitpicky - but I'm still seeing both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes. Those need fixing for a FAC per MOS and all. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Another nitpick - sometime you use "series 1" (and so on) both in text and in tables, and sometimes Series 1 (and so on). Whichever way these are presented, they need to be made consistent throughout. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't able to get to this in time. Thanks much for fixing the dashes, will continue to double-check. After some investigation into MOS:NUMBERS, also correct capitalisation etc., have also standardised the usage of 'series' and 'episode' throughout, as 'Episode 5 of Series 1' etc. Shoebox2 talk 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is confusing. The script I ran changes hyphens in page ranges to endashes (which is required), but for the text itself we need to have consistency of either endashes or emdashes. I've changed for you. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, this might seem like a lot! But it's not! This is a really solid and well-written article and I'll be supporting pending these changes. There's no hurry at all because I may not be back for a few days. I have one last question which is perhaps thorny - it's not at all clear to me why the article title is Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) when multiple years are involved. But's that's a can of worms that perhaps is best not to open? Victoria (tk) 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that, and probably should, as it was a decision made long before Shoebox2 had anything to do with the article. Essentialy it was done to disambiguate it with the 2001 animated series of the same name. Originally "live-action" and "animated" qualifiers were used, and I think this article was changed to "Horrible Histories (CBBC)" at one point, but the discussion seemed to be pretty thoroughly debated a few years ago or whenever it was, and I like the logic of it - that no matter how many more Horrible Histories series are made in the future, the disambiguation of the names is still valid (the year is when the series first started). Any changes for the better are certainly most welcome. (As a side note, I was wondering about the infobox... it seemed a bit messy to me back when I was working on Horrible Histories, and hasn't changed much since Shoebox2 took the reigns and completely revamped it, making it GA- and now FA-worthy. It seems incomplete (some of the writers are missing, some of the series numbers are wrong), inconsistent (for e.g. the varying use of capital letters), and as I said, messy.--Coin945 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Coin. If you do see any issues with the infobox, please don't hesitate to fix them. I've now given the lot a once-over in accordance with the info on the "Template: infobox television" page, and all should now be complete and correct in line with standard. As for the potentially incorrect series numbers, it's true that I've taken most of them on faith; I'll personally go through the credits series-by-series and try to double-check that all is accurate.
As for the article title, Coin is essentially correct re: the background reasoning. Personally, I agree that it's awkward, and would much rather this article be renamed to "Horrible Histories (TV series)"--with appropriate 'about' hatnote--on the grounds that it is much the better-known of the two (drawing over 10K pageviews to the other's 831 thus far in March 2014 alone). The other could thus be renamed to "Horrible Histories (animated series)" without causing much confusion. Shoebox2 talk 03:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response - the article title seems counterintuitive to me and I wondered whether it was just me. Horrible Histories (TV series) (which is apparently a dab page?) seems much more logical. For some reason I seem to think that a page move like this one (with so many edits and a lengthy talk page) would require an admin to do it and I think it might not be a bad idea to get it done during the FAC so that the FAC page and everything matches, if you do decide to move the page. I'm just popping in for a moment and will leave you to think about it (personally I don't know what I'd do if it were my first FAC!). Thanks too for the responses above; I'll have time tomorrow to take a look at the edits and to read through again. Victoria (tk) 00:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much in turn for all your help, and subsequent support. I feel like it's resulted in a much stronger article. Shoebox2 talk 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Leaning support; I was asked to look at this a few weeks back and had done so and was impressed. This is obviously a labour of love and I commend Shoebox for all the hard work and skill put into it. I'd like (yet another) read through before supporting, but supporting I will be. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and all your help, Ceoil, it's very much appreciated. :) Shoebox2 talk 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was the GA reviewer for this article, and I mentored Shoe in the GA Recruitment Centre, so I know that she's worked very hard in improving this article. I think that with the improvements suggested here, this is now worthy of the bronze star. This is a very interesting and fun-to-read article, with lots of insight about British TV and more specifically, British kids TV. Nice work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Would just mention here that Christine's patient mentoring actually had a lot to do with whatever quality the article has -- so you know, that's a pretty good advertisement for its quality. :) Shoebox2 talk 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, and thanks everyone who helped and encouraged along the way for their input. Thanks to you all this has been a remarkably enriching experience in ways I never anticipated. Shoebox2 talk 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Horrible_Histories_(2009_TV_series)/archive1&oldid=1136097319"