# Talk:Bedsitcom

What's up with there being a second cast? Did I skim over the part that explains that? Given the ratings and early cancellation, I can't seem them having produced or even just cast another series before the first one left air.   --  Zanimum (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "cast" is the wrong word to use in the article. Half of the people living in the bedsit thought they were taking part in a reality TV show, so I guess they were more like "contestants" rather than "cast members". During the first four episodes of Bedsitcom, the six people living in the flat comprised of three actors and three members of the public who thought that they were participating in a reality TV programme. After the three genuine contestants had learnt the truth at the end of episode four, they moved out and three new unaware members of the public took their place. From what I can establish, all six members of the public and all three actors were "cast" at about the same time, hence why there are two generations of the cast in a single series. Does, err, this all make sense? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally, the word cast is fine with me, despite what they thought they were doing. I'm now seeing about the two halves in the "Episodes" section, which I indeed didn't even read the intro to. Perhaps in the top intro, where it says about the six unsuspecting "contestants", perhaps it could say two sets of three? I dunno, the fact that there essentially were two mini-season in one seems important.  --  Zanimum (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've made that change now. Thanks a lot for the feedback! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bedsitcom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Really good. A lot of dashes used, which I do not have much experience on, but on reading MOS:EMDASH they appear fine. I have left some comments below, but they should be treated as suggestions as no major problems stand out.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The description of a normal sitcom as "crazy" was not in the reference. Apart from that they were fine.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): } b (focused): }
Only thing I could think of was the names of the other writers.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Seems pretty harsh, but that is what the reviewers said. It is good to see someone taking the time to improve an article on a "unpopular" programme.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Tick
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Fair use rational given for the images. Unless there is a picture of all nine cast members together the rational is fine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I am tempted to just pass this, but will wait for a response to my comments below. Good work. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead
Producers auditioned thousands of young adults to be the show's genuine contestants and selected from them two sets of three to live in the flat with the actors Selected from them two sets of three? From reading the rest I know what this means, but the first time it was confusing. Does it even need to say two sets of three? The next sentence explains it much better.
Ah, that edit was based on a suggestion made recently by Zanimum. I wasn't sure about it myself, so if you're saying that it doesn't read well, I'll just change it back.
Conflicting advice, one of the curses of Wikipedia. Did the creators always plan on using two sets of public in the series? Or was it just because the first group discovered that the show was a set up? The body seems to suggest the later, but it wouldn't hurt to explain it in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Production
It was created by Peter James and Andrew O'Connor, who wanted to produce a programme that featured genuine reactions to the type of crazy situations that would normally occur in a sitcom episode. This reads like a quote, but I could not find it in either of the two references. I don't like the use of "crazy". If one of the creators was saying that it would be fine in quotes, otherwise it seems like original research.
Removed.
Bedsitcom combined these two elements by featuring three members of the public being unknowingly placed in extraordinary situations by three actors being directed by writers Would consider changing "directed". As this is about a TV show directed could easily mean something else.
Actually directed is probably the right word now that I think about it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The writers often appeared on screen — each episode they would explain to the TV audience what their intention for that particular episode was. Episode used twice in one sentence. Could it be simplified to "The writers would appeared on screen and explain to the TV audience what their intention for each episode was."
Done.
Episodes
The first four episodes centred on the lives of Mel, Paul and Rufus—the three actors—as they lived in the flat with Bob, Dave and Shirine, the three unaware members of the public who believed they were taking part in a genuine reality TV show. Could the description of the actors and the public be consistent, i.e. either both using dashes or both behind commas.
Done.
Bad monkeys description is noticeable brief compared to the others. Is there anything else to add?
Expanded a bit.
Distribution
Originally intended to run for eight weeks, Bedsitcom was taken off the air after only two following poor ratings. What does "...after only two following poor ratings" mean?
"Bedsitcom was taken off the air after only two weeks, following poor ratings", but I didn't want to use the word "weeks" again. I've added a comma that I hope will mean that the sentence makes more sense.
Of course! For some reason I did not relate the two with weeks. The comma works, but I would think about moving the "following poor ratings" to between weeks and Bedsitcom. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review, Aircorn! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No Problem. One of the easiest ones I have done in a while. Sorry it took so long and thanks for the quick responses. I will pass this now, you can take or leave the last few comments. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much! Your last few comments make a lot of sense, so I've made those changes. Thanks again! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bedsitcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tv.com/bedsitcom/show/23556/cast.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tv.com/bedsitcom/show/23556/episode.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725050642/http://www.jc2m.co.uk/Issue1/Editorial.pdf to http://www.jc2m.co.uk/Issue1/Editorial.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)