Talk:Neighbours: The Finale

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:

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance). Soap Operas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles Australia Low‑importance Neighbours: The Finale is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Kylie Minogue Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kylie Minogue, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kylie Minogue 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.Kylie MinogueWikipedia:WikiProject Kylie MinogueTemplate:WikiProject Kylie MinogueKylie Minogue articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

When we first began developing the article it only incorporated the final two episodes. Myself and JuneGloom07 were forced to rewrite sections to reflect the changes. It was annoying but we cannot change the facts: the finale was 90 minutes long in Australia and included Episode 8901. This was the original broadcast of the finale. Jason Herbison is documented in the article discussing how this changed post-production for the Australian version of the finale. So you are wrong to state it was simply shoved onto preceding episode since the preceding episode had to be changed. It was edited into one single broadcast with extra content. Why do you want to rewrite history? It makes no sense. Would you argue to remove bonus tracks mentioned in an album article because they were not originally planned? Would you argue to remove a surprise act from music concert article because they not originally planned? Would you argue to remove reference to an unplanned child from a biography? Things change and they definitely did regarding the finale of Neighbours. Besides, Episode 8901 aired on the same date as the British finale edit and was on their "Neighbours Night" schedule. This is documented in the article and the differences explained with sourced content in the article. It still fits.Rain the 1 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think we can really say that old title cards were re-used. And in fact, nice spot that Leo isn't credited in episode 8851, but he is with the main cast in the final fortnight. Also, Harlow and Hendrix are obviously removed, and the order is different. Zara, meanwhile, is in fact credited in 8851. Evidently they are contractual matters of various sorts - Zara, Nell and Hugo (and Sadie) being minors, and the Rodwells joining the main cast when the end of production was set (Candice Leask has talked in an interview about their contracts being short ones, up to the filming end date). So while the distinction between main/guest isn't abundantly clear in the final episode's credits, I think the conistency of those characters appearing further down the list and their absence from the clearly distinguished main cast credits in the preceding episodes means they should be listed as guests here. U-Mos (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree Therealscorp1an. They did not reuse old title cards. They have always been consistently updated per episode. U-Mos studied the credits and confirmed - perhaps you should too. I noticed Zara was downgraded and the rest followed. This was another annoying change that we knew would cause issues and has.Rain the 1 23:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neighbours: The Finale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot is nearly 1,400 words. MOS:PLOT cites a film guideline suggesting 400-700 words, and that's for a full length feature film. This is three episodes, with a total running time of 90 minutes. I could see you might want to push a little past 700 words, but it's almost twice that.
• The article is very long, at over 10,000 words. Per the size guidelines, this is at the point where it "probably should be divided". Before I go through the article, can you say why you think the article needs to be so long?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be odd to split this article given it is so specific. This is an article about a show finale and I believe it is now complete. I think we should be careful to not allow any more information in. The source material received extensive coverage. The article covers every aspect of production without going off-topic. The article will benefit from the plot section being cut down. It does not need all the plot detail given.Rain the 1 07:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the plot and removed some trivial details. It now sits at 761 words.Rain the 1 09:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK on both. And cutting the plot took the total wordage down too, of course. I'll start the review this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Images are all correctly licensed.

• You have four cites to Metro. Per WP:RS/PS this is not a reliable source. Can any of these be replaced with something more reliable?

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)[reply]

• "There were post-production challenges, following Network 10's decision to broadcast the finale in a ninety-minute format. Episode 8901 was edited into the original sixty minute version, with the extended run-time allowing for extended dialogue and an extra cameo from Stephanie McIntosh as Sky Mangel. These were not featured in the British broadcast, where episode 8901 was broadcast earlier on the same day as the final hour, which was broadcast in a primetime slot. Herbison later revealed that there were more than fifteen minutes of footage cut from the episode." I don't follow this; I imagine it's explained in more detail in the body, and I'll look at that, but it needs to be clearer in the lead. The "finale" presumably refers to all three episodes, so that seems to imply each episode is thirty minutes long. So what does "original sixty minute version" mean? No earlier version has been mentioned. And then the British broadcast of 8901 was thirty minutes? But Herbison's comment can't refer to the thirty minute version because at least thirty minutes had to be cut from that.
• "The episode featured more commercial music than any episode had done previously": what is "commercial music"?
• "4.02 million viewers watched the finale, with the addition of recordings and catch-up services": I'm not clear if the "addition" means in addition to the 4.02 M viewers, or "4.02 M viewers, counting recordings and catch-up services".
• "Malcolm Kennedy visits his parents, Karl and Susan, for lunch without his girlfriend Izzy Hoyland, whom his parents' enemy." This makes no sense -- is a word missing?
• You use both "Mal" and "Malcolm"; I would be consistent.  Done
• "they arrange a get-together in the complex": what is the "complex"?  Done
• "Jane meets Mike, who she had a historic relationship with and she joins them for drinks": "historic" means "newsworthy"; do you mean "with whom she once had a relationship"?  Done
• "Harold and Shane join Jane, Paul, Mike and Sam, where they reminisce": "where" isn't right because no place is given; perhaps just "and they reminisce".  Done
• "Scott then stops Charlene entering through the open window": what open window? Of someone's house?
• "The show's Executive Producer, Jason Herbison, was informed about the possibility the show could end in 2021, and relayed the news to cast and crew shortly after": "executive producer" doesn't need capitals; and I think we should know when Herbison was informed since otherwise "shortly after" doesn't mean anything.
• "a new deal with Neighbours' parent company Fremantle": is this meant to be "production company"?
• I think we should know in the first paragraph of the background section when that season was scheduled to end -- i.e they hear about it in February, but the reader doesn't know if the end of the season is March, June, or even December. When the second paragraph says "would cease in June" I can't tell if that's when the season end would have been anyway.
• 'On 3 March, it was confirmed that the show would end because an alternative broadcasting partner had not been found. It was stated that production would cease in June that year after thirty-seven years of filming. A statement from the production team read: "we are so sorry to say that after nearly 37 years and almost 9,000 episodes broadcast we have to confirm that Neighbours will cease production in June."' These three sentences all say almost the same thing -- can we eliminate some repetition?
• 'The statement detailed that there was "no option" to continue production but promised "to end the show on an incredible high."' And the first half of this says the same thing again -- we don't need the quote of "no option" to understand that production was ceasing.
• 'Herbison used the terminology that the show was being "rested" rather than "axed". He explained that Neighbours is a huge brand and the company would be "open to all possibilities", but the show was ending for the foreseeable future and cast members were free to pursue other projects following its end.' Wordy -- how about "Herbison said the show was being "rested", and that Neighbours was a huge brand and Fremantle were "open to all possibilities", but the show was ending for the foreseeable future and cast members were free to pursue other projects following its end."?
• 'In the show's final month on-screen, Channel 5 controller Ben Frow described ending the show as solely a "business decision".' Is this worth including? What else could it be but a business decision?

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)[reply]

Therealscorp1an, re your edits and edit summary, of course it's fine for you to help out, but please don't strike the points when you mark them done. The usual convention is that the nominator or anyone helping responds under each bullet point, and then reviewer strikes the issues when they agree they are resolved. Don't worry about the ones you've already struck; I took a look and I agree they're all dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The last GAN I was involved in didnt't work like that, so I was none the wiser. My bad. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; and thanks for helping out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Herbison wanted the show to end on a positive note, as a celebration of the show's history, and wanted "the door very much left open for a future", rather than "blowing up" Ramsay Street. By March had come up with ideas for the finale. When Herbison and the show's story producer, Shane Isheev, began working together on the show's final episodes, Herbison gave Isheev his ideas, and Isheev was so impressed that he decided not to pitch his own suggestions, though he acknowledged that no ending would please every viewer. Herbison's proposal included many of the elements that appeared in the broadcast episodes, including "the joyous street party, Susan's voiceover, the characters no longer with us, the balloon, the original theme song and the message to audience".

This cuts quite a few things, but I don't think they're needed. Some examples of why I think things should be cut:

• "After the show's cancellation was confirmed". Herbison thinks of an ending after the cancellation; he wouldn't think of it before, so this doesn't add much.
• "He did not reveal any details and noted that it was not storylined or written, and could still change." Plot details are never revealed (deliberately, at least), and at several months remove from shooting of course it could change, so this is not very informative. If we did want to keep it it could be much more concise -- just "he gave no details" would be enough.
• 'He teased that the final episode would be a "wonderful" ending to end the show "on a high".' This is Herbison saying his own idea is great; I don't think this is worth including. And "tease" is jargon in this usage, so would need to be rephrased if we wanted to keep this.

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)[reply]

Just wanted to quickly check in and say thanks to Mike for reviewing, and to apologise for being rather busy currently so unable to give full attention for a week or two. When I previously looked over the article - at the end of which process I nominated for GA - I cut a lot of material of the trivial nature you decide, and am not too surprised that fresh eyes see even more of its kind. Hopefully another look myself after the time away will yield more cuts that can be made - is there a wordage/data size you would recommend aiming for? U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would go on the merits of the information; no doubt some sections will not need much cutting while others may have to be cut heavily. No worries on the timing; I'll check in with you in a week if I've heard nothing, but I'm happy to extend the review time if work is being done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have given it some thought and agree with your assessment that a GAR is not the place for this article. I personally would never have nominated it. There is so much information to go through and it is not at the level I normally feel comfortable nominating for GA. When I started the draft, I never imagined there would be so much content. I collaborated on this with @JuneGloom07: and wonder what her take on this is too. I actually did not realise it was nominated until after the fact. I understand UMos tried to cut information down and look after it - but it would have been nice to have been asked my opinion on nominating it since I added a significant portion of the content.Rain the 1 20:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with User:Raintheone here. I also wouldn't have nominated the article at this point either, and it would have been nice if we were asked about it at least (something I mentioned at WP:GAN yesterday). Instead of leaving this review open, I think the article should be worked on outside of the process and maybe re-nominated at a later time. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view was (and remains) that the article was at a point where external feedback would be useful, and I think what Mike has provided has been useful whether this GAN ultimately passes or fails. And, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything to hinder renominating when the issues have been addressed? U-Mos (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that two of the main editors don't feel the article is ready, I'm going to fail this. To U-Mos's question, I didn't go through the whole article, so I think once everything I've identified is addressed, the article might still not be ready. It would be ideal if the three of you were to agree before the next nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review a portion of the article Mike. You have given us good direction.Rain the 1 12:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]