Neighbours: The Finale was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 9, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great work here, however I do think the article should still be at Finale (Neighbours). Firstly, since when do we precede episode titles with the series name in article titles? Secondly, there is no clear exact official name: Neighbours: The Finale is the UK styling, Neighbours: Finale in Australia, Neighbours: The Final Farewell in New Zealand, and I imagine others in other countries. For a) conciseness, b) general TV series convention of the last episode being called a "finale", and c) home nation, Finale is preferable. Why the change? U-Mos ( talk) 20:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
And also, I'm not convinced by the decision to consider episodes 8901 to 8903 as the finale. Production info, as detailed and sourced in the article, is very clear the finale was conceived as a double episode, and simply broadcast/edited with the preceding episode for the Australian showing. What do others think? U-Mos ( talk) 20:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, all the content edits occur within episode 8903. Your perspective is valid but it's not as cut and dry as you suggest. I certainly think it's appropriate to have a full discussion and find a consensus. U-Mos ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
What I think is important here (as I may not have been clear initially) is not just that the finale was conceived as two episodes, but that it was created and completed in that form - and has been broadcast as such, in the UK. Then, as the article details, the Australian scheduling led to it being subsequently re-edited with episode 8901 for its Channel 10 broadcast. The alternative view is to place emphasis on the first/home nation showing. My feeling is the production details, particularly Herbison relating the re-editing process, sway us towards the two-episode iteration taking primacy. U-Mos ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a slight edit war on the page regarding the guest characters. Characters such as Nell, Hugo, Zara, Wendy, Andrew and Sadie have been listed as guest characters in this instance. I disagree with this. The opposing argument here is that these characters were not listed in title cards with the rest of the regular characters for the final week. However, this is because these are old title cards that have been re-used. Let's look at episode 8851, where much of the cast was not included in the end credit cast title cards. Leo Tanaka was one of the characters not included. So does that mean, following this argument, that Leo was downgraded to a guest character for just this episode? I also think it is highly improbable that Nell, a regular for seven-odd years, would be downgraded for a week. Same as Hugo. What about Zara? A regular for the whole year, but for the last week production decided she would be a guest? There was also a huge deal made about the Rodwells becoming regulars, so I'd doubt they'd be guest characters for the last week. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 22:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Neighbours: The Finale → Finale (Neighbours) – See Talk:Neighbours: The Finale#Title. Proposed title is equally recognisable, more natural, more precise considering the variations on the name in different countries, more concise, and consistent with naming conventions for television episodes. Previous iteration of the article existed stably at this title. U-Mos ( talk) 08:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Images are all correctly licensed.
There are a lot of cites to things like Twitter, which is OK if they're for uncontroversial statements related to the account owner; I'll look at those as I go through the article. Will review the content next. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
More to come; not sure when, but perhaps tomorrow morning (U.S. east coast time). Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Having read further, I want to revisit the question of whether the article is too long. One example is the first paragraph of the development section. This starts with three sentences about Herbison's idea (without saying what it is), then four on not "blowing up" Ramsay Street, and then six on Herbison working with Isheev. The bones of the paragraph are this:
This cuts quite a few things, but I don't think they're needed. Some examples of why I think things should be cut:
Another example picked from the middle of the article: in the "Cast" section, there are over 300 words devoted to saying Minogue and Donovan agreed to return to the show. The material is not encyclopedic -- why do we need to know Herbison confirmed the news? Why does it matter he used Twitter to do so? The leak to Tik Tok seems like trivia to me, but if it were kept, why does the reader need to know that Minogue was talking to a film crew? Why do we care who Herbison talked to at Inside Soap, or even that it was Inside Soap the quote came from, or who Minogue spoke to? In fact that quote from Herbison seems unnecessary -- we get Minogue commenting in the Glamour interview about her reasons for returning.
The article has been waiting six months for a review, so I really don't want to fail it, but I think it contains a lot of trivia that goes beyond encyclopedic coverage. I think it needs to be gone through with an eye to what can be cut. I'm going to pause the review here to let you comment, in the hopes that we can come to an agreement on what's best for the article. I think the work that's needed is more than can easily be done in the time frame of a GA review, but let's see how the conversation goes. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Neighbours: The Finale was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 9, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great work here, however I do think the article should still be at Finale (Neighbours). Firstly, since when do we precede episode titles with the series name in article titles? Secondly, there is no clear exact official name: Neighbours: The Finale is the UK styling, Neighbours: Finale in Australia, Neighbours: The Final Farewell in New Zealand, and I imagine others in other countries. For a) conciseness, b) general TV series convention of the last episode being called a "finale", and c) home nation, Finale is preferable. Why the change? U-Mos ( talk) 20:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
And also, I'm not convinced by the decision to consider episodes 8901 to 8903 as the finale. Production info, as detailed and sourced in the article, is very clear the finale was conceived as a double episode, and simply broadcast/edited with the preceding episode for the Australian showing. What do others think? U-Mos ( talk) 20:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, all the content edits occur within episode 8903. Your perspective is valid but it's not as cut and dry as you suggest. I certainly think it's appropriate to have a full discussion and find a consensus. U-Mos ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
What I think is important here (as I may not have been clear initially) is not just that the finale was conceived as two episodes, but that it was created and completed in that form - and has been broadcast as such, in the UK. Then, as the article details, the Australian scheduling led to it being subsequently re-edited with episode 8901 for its Channel 10 broadcast. The alternative view is to place emphasis on the first/home nation showing. My feeling is the production details, particularly Herbison relating the re-editing process, sway us towards the two-episode iteration taking primacy. U-Mos ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a slight edit war on the page regarding the guest characters. Characters such as Nell, Hugo, Zara, Wendy, Andrew and Sadie have been listed as guest characters in this instance. I disagree with this. The opposing argument here is that these characters were not listed in title cards with the rest of the regular characters for the final week. However, this is because these are old title cards that have been re-used. Let's look at episode 8851, where much of the cast was not included in the end credit cast title cards. Leo Tanaka was one of the characters not included. So does that mean, following this argument, that Leo was downgraded to a guest character for just this episode? I also think it is highly improbable that Nell, a regular for seven-odd years, would be downgraded for a week. Same as Hugo. What about Zara? A regular for the whole year, but for the last week production decided she would be a guest? There was also a huge deal made about the Rodwells becoming regulars, so I'd doubt they'd be guest characters for the last week. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 22:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Neighbours: The Finale → Finale (Neighbours) – See Talk:Neighbours: The Finale#Title. Proposed title is equally recognisable, more natural, more precise considering the variations on the name in different countries, more concise, and consistent with naming conventions for television episodes. Previous iteration of the article existed stably at this title. U-Mos ( talk) 08:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Images are all correctly licensed.
There are a lot of cites to things like Twitter, which is OK if they're for uncontroversial statements related to the account owner; I'll look at those as I go through the article. Will review the content next. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
More to come; not sure when, but perhaps tomorrow morning (U.S. east coast time). Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Having read further, I want to revisit the question of whether the article is too long. One example is the first paragraph of the development section. This starts with three sentences about Herbison's idea (without saying what it is), then four on not "blowing up" Ramsay Street, and then six on Herbison working with Isheev. The bones of the paragraph are this:
This cuts quite a few things, but I don't think they're needed. Some examples of why I think things should be cut:
Another example picked from the middle of the article: in the "Cast" section, there are over 300 words devoted to saying Minogue and Donovan agreed to return to the show. The material is not encyclopedic -- why do we need to know Herbison confirmed the news? Why does it matter he used Twitter to do so? The leak to Tik Tok seems like trivia to me, but if it were kept, why does the reader need to know that Minogue was talking to a film crew? Why do we care who Herbison talked to at Inside Soap, or even that it was Inside Soap the quote came from, or who Minogue spoke to? In fact that quote from Herbison seems unnecessary -- we get Minogue commenting in the Glamour interview about her reasons for returning.
The article has been waiting six months for a review, so I really don't want to fail it, but I think it contains a lot of trivia that goes beyond encyclopedic coverage. I think it needs to be gone through with an eye to what can be cut. I'm going to pause the review here to let you comment, in the hopes that we can come to an agreement on what's best for the article. I think the work that's needed is more than can easily be done in the time frame of a GA review, but let's see how the conversation goes. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)