This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
A fact from The Curse of Steptoe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 4,517 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that The Curse of Steptoe, a 2008 television play based upon the making of the BBC sitcom Steptoe and Son, gained the highest audience figures to date for BBC Four?
I can't quite put my finger on it, but reading through the items about the legal challenge on this drama programme's accuracy, I wonder whether there is a possibility that one of the involved parties may have had something to do with writing it; there does seem to be an awful lot of criticism of the inaccuracies presented from one viewpoint (no defence of artistic/dramatic licence argument, etc). Of course all it's mainly doing is presenting statements, but by stating large chunks of the BBC Trust's critical report in detail, and the stuff about the DVD recall it gives the feeling of having some involvement somehow. Just an impression, really. Anyway, I've separated all of this stuff in a new section, as it's now nearly as long as the rest of the page put together! Bobtalk 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is rather a long-winded section. However, the multiple challenges to the programme's content did result in the complaints being upheld and significantly, edits being made, which is a somewhat rare event in itself; as well as the apparent "worldwide" lengths undertaken to withdraw the DVD from sale (although one wonders about the popularity of the programme overseas). I agree that it would be interesting to read more about any defences made by the production/writing team, particularly in terms of the research done to arrive at the decisions made about how to portray Corbett and Brambell, and their working relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.24.147 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appear in the last section's rant. Apart from the whole thing not making much sense imho, what are these symbols there for? 110.32.249.41 (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) (sorry not logged in: Manytexts)[reply]
It is a quote and therefore was copied directly from the source page. I can't make any sense of it either though. --Peppagetlk 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're adding much to have a Guardian journalist telling us that "fictionalised accounts can land the Beeb in hot water" after three lengthy sections detailing the controversy over the programme. Beyond that, it's a review of the Hattie Jacques dramatisation, which isn't the subject of this article; all we can draw from it is "a journalist, reviewing a later programme in the same genre, decided that she didn't like the genre". I've cut the paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
