# Talk:Judge John Deed

From the Article: "The show is known for unusual judgements and legal twists which would be unlikely in any real courtroom. Examples of these include Deed effectively running a manslaughter case, presiding in a case in which both his ex-wife and daughter (as a pupil) appear on different sides, suggesting to a jury that it may wish to reconsider its verdict, going to the media with a disagreement about a sentence in a case, then standing on the appeal bench for said case, and, perhaps most damningly, forming a public crusade against a corrupt Home Secretary (who also happens to be his ex-wife's husband). The show also unrealistically portrays the Lord Chancellor's Department effectively micro-managing and trying to influence individual cases to support the Government's aims, suggesting a degree of power and control over the judiciary that the Government simply doesn't have (or indeed, it could be argued, doesn't have in any sphere of public administration)."
Is it just me, or does this section sound just a little defensive? As in, someone from the Home office or Lord Chanvellor's Department has decided to set the record straight because s/he cant stand "Deeds" actions within the show? Could it be re-written a bit better to say that, along with virtually every piece of fiction, it is not completely factually accurate? I'm leaving it for now... 58.7.171.182 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree - it's fair enough to point out that the show presents an inaccurate or fictional view of the legal system, but words like "damningly" are out of place in a NPOV article. I've rewritten the paragraph to hopefully retain most of its substance, while sounding less like a letter to Points of View. Aretnap 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm rewatching some Deed, so I added some episode summaries. Opinions? Too short? Too long? Too spoilery? I didn't have time to record who Deed shagged/flirted with/ogled... life's too short.
86.27.51.10 02:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page but it occured to me that your IP might have changed. I though the series 4 summaries were good. The pilot and "Rough Justice" summaries are too short and too long but I've fiddled with those in my sandbox to make them a decent length. Would you be able to do summaries for series 3 and 5 and both parts of the series 6 episodes? WindsorFan 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that'd be me (I have a dynamic IP), sorry! I haven't checked this discussion page for a while. I did the series 4 and 6 summaries; the pilot and other S1 stuff was here long before. I had watched S5 a while ago, but I couldn't remember in enough detail to add anything constructive. Amazon doesn't have anything later than S2 available, so it might be a while before I see them again. Still, if there's need for it, I'll add summaries when I can.
Oh, did you mean split the S6 episodes into 2 parts? I felt as one story, the summary worked better as one part. I don't think the summary gives anything away (other than the assassination attempts) that would spoil part 2 if you've only seen part 1.82.2.118.14 14:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on re-reading, the S6 summaries are a bit spoilery, aren't they... Hmm.82.2.118.14 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved all of the episode summaries to a new article so this discussion can be continued on that talk page. WindsorFan 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just updated the Characters section, as it seemed from the original text that all of Deed's colleagues in the legal system oppose to him all the time. I've just watched an episode with Deed working with help from both Sir Joseph and Sir Monty, so I thought they deserved a view from both sides :) Since I am Dutch, it is possible some terms can be beter worded, so feel free to edit spelling mistakes out of or better official terms into the text :) Hertog 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to point out that the series are running on Canvas.
You can write it under the broadcast history

Just a hit and run comment: avoid short sections, such as those with one paragraph. Consider merging some of them. The article is in good shape... The JPStalk to me 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed this article, I am happy that it meets the GA criteria in respect of verifiability, neutrality, stability and appropriate use of images. However there are a few specific issues I have with regard to the clarity of the text and the depth of coverage as follows:

Just to update, I've put a strikethough against the items, I am satisfied have been addressed properly. There are still a few points that still need to be looked at.  - Joe King 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Infobox:
:*Is all of the series in HD? I'm not sure the BBC were making programmes in HD as far back as 2001?

I have put dates next to the picture formats.
Production:
“Following his ground-breaking 1970s series Law and Order...” - what makes this programme ground-breaking and who says so? Appears to be in contravention of WP:NPOV.
Reference 1 says it was ground-breaking.
But that's just POV of the writer. From the perspective of WP:NPOV, I'm not convinced that this series is widely and uncontroversially considered “ground-breaking”. As it stands, this sentence reads like hagiography to me and is unencyclopedic. You could, perhaps, say “Following his 1970s series Law and Order – hailed as “ground-breaking” by Paul Nathanson in The Times – G.F. Newman etc...”. Personally I'd prefer a straightforward factual approach e.g. “G.F. Newman is an author, television producer and screenwriter whose previous venture into legal drama for the BBC was in the 1970s with Law and Order (1978) etc...”
I've taken your second suggestion, otherwise the article will just get bogged-down in describing a completely different series in the first sentences!
:*I think a specific distinction should be made in the text between Law and Order, the old BBC series written by Newman, and the better known US series of the same name.

I shouldn't think an explicit distinction needs to be made within the body of the text ("1970s series" covers this) but I've wikilinked Law and Order to hopefully eliminate confusion.
“The series is filmed on Digital Betacam and post-production is carried out by Martyr Television using Avid Symphony. Grading is done using Edifis Finaliser while the audio track is mixed on ProTools HD.” - perhaps too much detail for an encyclopaedia article? Also, per my query above re: whether the series is in HD, is Digital Betacam a HD format? I not sure if it is.
To respond to the first part of the comment, I don't believe it is "too" detailed; granted, other television series articles might not include technical information about post-production but as the information for this series is available from a verifiable source (the entire piece can be read here if you don't have access to Broadcast) I have chosen to include it in a summary style for the purposes of completeness.
The problem is that there's nothing particularly notable about the way JJD is made – the same tools are used on virtually every UK drama show. It's not worth dying in a ditch over with regard to the GA assessment but I think you need to step back and consider it in the context of an encyclopedia article which should be high-level and not too focused on detail. You don't have to include a reference to every article you find on the programme.
I take your point that it probably isn't in any way significant compared to other programmes, so have removed the sentence.
:*“It was released commercially on Wiseman's soundtrack, Something Here, and is also available on iTunes.” - since Something Here appears to be a compilation, I feel the term “album” rather than “soundtrack” would be more appropriate. Also, you should remove the iTunes reference – Wikipedia is not an advertising space.

I have changed "soundtrack" to "compilation album". I did not intend to refer to iTunes for advertising purposes, rather just to indicate it has been released as a single piece, so I have changed iTunes to "online music retailers".
Setting:
:*I would suggest that this section be merged with the Characters section below since it is the interaction of the characters that is central to the format of the programme. It would also eliminate confusing sentences such as “Judge John Deed is a recently-appointed High Court judge who seeks justice in the cases before him, while at the same time seeking Jo Mills QC.” - what does seeking mean? Did he lose Ms Mills in the supermarket or something?

Heh. Just a little wordplay with "seeking" there. I have changed this to a clear "trying to rekindle an old romance with Jo Mills QC, who regularly appears in his court". As for merging it with characters, that might create confusion; while the characters do drive the series, it is important to clearly identify the actual story. However, I have compacted the two subsections of "Setting" and renamed it "Setting and storylines".
That's much better – reads well and is understandable to someone who has only limited knowledge of the series
:*“it was apparent that the one-off adaption of Alan Hunter's Inspector Gently novels would be commissioned for a full series” - make it more specific that Shaw starred in this.

Done.
Characters:
:*“Sir John Deed...” - is he a Judge or a Sir or both? Make it explicit e.g. “Judge Sir John Deed...”.

Done.
:*LCD and DCA – don't abbreviate these; they're meaningless to us non-Brits.

Expanded.
Reception:
:*“It also notes the dramatic effects of Deed's faults preventing him from being a heroic figure” - what does this mean? What “dramatic effects”? What “faults”?

I've expanded this with examples used by Screenonline.
Much better.
Critical reaction: I would suggest that you find a few good quotes from TV review columns on the critical reaction to the programme – the section is good on the various controversies but also needs some discussion regarding how the series works (or doesn't work) as a television drama.
 The majority of television reviews just say things like "Deed was good/bad last night" but I'll have a closer look on Newsbank for any in-depth comments.
Could be balanced out perhaps with a positive review? Somebody must like it if it's run for 5 seasons!
Reviewers tend to offer jokey positive reviews of the series (the Hanks review is quite tongue-in-cheek), but I'll keep looking for serious items.
:*Transmission (tx) dates for the episodes cited would be useful for the purpose of context.

I'm not sure whether you mean using cite episode or just the dates, but I've put the year the episodes were broadcast in.
OK
:*“the episode would not be repeated in its original form” - this appears to contradict the statement in the lead section that this episode was “banned”; “not repeated in its original form” would indicate that it is suitable for repeat but in an edited format. Please clarify.

It's honestly difficult to say. Ref 21 (page 50) states "The BBC's editorial complaints unit upheld the complaint against the programme, and ruled it should not be re-broadcast" while ref 19 says "episode in question would not be re-broadcast, except in a context in which the requirements of impartiality were met." 19 implies that it can be shown again but only with significant edits, while 21, written after the ruling, seems to imply it is banned altogether. I suppose it is possible that they misquoted and I'll just go with the information given.
OK
Series information:
:*Broadcast history: Suggest that some ratings information be included? [1] will have historical data. Not critical for GA, just a suggestion.

I've put in a mention of the ratings peak. Ratings for all episodes are on List of Judge John Deed episodes.
OK
:*DVD release: BBFC ratings information is perhaps a bit too detailed for an encyclopaedia article. You should specify that the DVD release is region 2 and add info on other regions if it has been released there. If any notable extras are included on the DVD, you should mention them. Finally, wikilink 2|Entertain to the BBC Worldwide article, as follows: 2|Entertain.

I think the ratings are OK. Extras aren't included and no other country has released the DVD (TV Shows on DVD does not have information on the DVD licensee [2])
OK
Accordingly, I am placing the article on hold for a period of seven days to enable the editors to address the issues raised above. I will revisit the article then and pass/fail as appropriate. Feel free to ping me at my talk page if you need clarification or you feel you've made the necessary changes and want me to revisit. Good luck! - Joe King 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review! Brad 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's a pass I think. Good luck with improving the article further. - Joe King 10:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can a Judge preside over criminal and civil cases simultaniously?--109.91.72.35 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judge John Deed. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mndassociation.org/news_and_events/news_room/press_releases/tetra_masts_and.html
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Judge John Deed. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212170454/http://www.denhaag.com/default.asp?id=5257&ep= to http://www.denhaag.com/default.asp?id=5257&ep=
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208072333/http://www.celebritiesworldwide.com/Award.cfm?Year=2006&ContentID=1000 to http://www.celebritiesworldwide.com/Award.cfm?Year=2006&ContentID=1000
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 22:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judge John Deed. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104195547/http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2006/12/bbc_announces_j.html to http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2006/12/bbc_announces_j.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 03:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the highlight box for the quote by David Mitchell in the "Critical Reaction" section. Mitchell is a comedian, not a TV critic, and so I think it is out of place being highlighted so much. I suggest moving it from the "box" and instead putting it in the ordinary text. Adpete (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)