This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 9 April 2022 by reviewer DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs). Podcasting Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information 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.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) BBC Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Bristol Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles 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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Forestry (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles 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.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Irish Independent Book Riot CrimeReads Refinery29 (promo?) PodBible (interview) BBC Press Release iTunes Chart Evening Standard ProQuest 2215256456 The Western Morning News ProQuest 2202150139 The Post ProQuest 2642196328

Grapesoda22, is there a guideline, manul of style, or RfC indicating that episode tables should not be sortable? I made it sortable because I figured some people might want to sort by the episode numbers in the series, which is broken down into types of episode (episode/plot, talk/discussion, and soundscape). However, I can see why it might not be worth the trouble given how few episodes there are. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: The table needed to be updated to use the standard episode table template, which is used for lists of episodes from virtually all TV shows and podcasts. The ability to sort episodes is not supported this template. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesoda22: is there any benefit to using the template rather than a regular table? They look identical and a regular table can be customized. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant:The reason we use this template is because it synchronizes new changes and updates to all of the episode lists at the same time. This table may look the same now, but if there were stylistic changes made to the template in the future this page would become outdated. It saves us the hassle of constantly having to update every episode list manually, which was a headache for years. Adding short episode summaries, in your own words, to the list would help out a great deal. It helps me out when I want to look into specific episodes of shows.Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While reading through the available sources I noticed a distinct lack of any announcements regarding the exact date that this show debuted on. I also felt that many of the dates that were mentioned did not seem to match or line up as I would've expected. So, I decided to go through the sources and outline what I found.

According to the BBC Sounds episode list, the episodes were released daily from 5 March 2019 until 1 April 2019 (starting with Episode 0).^[1] However, the press release for the show was published 2 April 2019, the day after the show finished, which seems odd because you'd generally want to hype up the show before it releases not after.^[2] None of the available sources appear to be published prior to 2 April 2019.

Both the press release and the Radio Times indicate that the podcast boxset was released on 4 April 2019, however, they both use strange grammar: "BBC Radio 4’s Forest 404 will be available as a podcast box set on BBC Sounds from Thursday 4 April." Generally, I'd think the word "from" indicates a starting date and a span of time until a specified ending date. In this case, I think it's just poorly worded and simply means the boxset will be available on 4 April 2019.^[2][3]

The academic study began at the same time that the boxset was released. "Participation was open for seven months, from 4th April to 31st October 2019."^[4]

According to BBC Radio 4's episode list, the show was broadcast twice without the companion episodes (starting with Episode 1). The show was first broadcast on a weekly basis from 27 April 2020 until 29 June 2020. Later the show was broadcast on a daily basis from 21 February 2023 until 3 March 2023.^[5] The Open University confirms the earlier start date of 27 April 2020 and indicates that it's the second time the show has been broadcast, which is weird because I can't find mention of the show being broadcast prior to this date.^[6] The Financial Times article published on 7 April 2020 says the show is "Already an award-winning podcast, available on Sounds, it is set to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 soon." Which implies that the show had not been broadcast previously and was only available via BBC Sounds until it was broadcast for the first time in Spring 2020.^[7]

Based on all this, I believe that the show was first released exclusively on BBC Sounds as a podcast between 5 March 2019 until 1 April 2019. The press release was then published to promote the boxset and the academic study, which were released on 4 April 2019. The show was later broadcast on BBC Radio 4 for the first time from 27 April 2020 until 29 June 2020. The show was then broadcast a second time on BBC Radio 4 from 21 February 2023 until 3 March 2023. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason I wrote all this out on the talk page is because I'm unsure how much of this is clearly verifiable and I'm afraid adding some of this to the background section might be considered original research. I'm literally combining information from different sources and guessing, which seems a lot like WP:SYNTH. Some of the sources appear to conflict, which makes me wonder what that means regarding their reliability. The dates in the episode table are currently pulled from BBC Sounds episode details, but I suppose the dates don't necessarily warrant citations per WP:MINREF? If I added the different broadcast dates to the table would those require citations? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I certainly listened to this, and remember it being trailed but I can't remember when and how. I think it was all as podcast form, I couldn't even say if it was sounds only. Rankersbo (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to determine the best radio broadcasting debut and ending categories to use and decided I'm more likely to get a response at the WikiProject. The discussion can be found here: WT:Radio#Debut_and_ending_dates. Rankersbo, I'd appreciate your input there as well if you have any thoughts on this. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I have some general questions about the article that I'd like input on.

1. In the synopsis, is the use of quotations for in-universe terminology appropriate? Should I be using the emphasis template instead? Or should I avoid in-universe terminology altogether and simply paraphrase?
2. In the third paragraph of the Production section I've paraphrased the Mississippi Valley Conservancy source saying "The all-female cast included LGBT people and people of color, which is uncommon in media related to climate change." Is this a fact or opinion, and is it appropriate to state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice?
3. In the episode table, should I include the different broadcast dates in addition to the original podcast release dates? I find that citing sources in a table tends to get messy. Should I provide inline citations for the data in the table or can I get away with not citing sources per WP:MINREF? If I listen to each episode and provide a short summary do I need to cite the episode as a primary reference for each summary?
4. Does the prose of the reception section flow well? Is my paraphrasing okay or did I embellish or editorialize too much?
5. Is there a better word or phrase for the heading "Academic outcomes"?
6. Rather than adding inline citations after each sentence I've opted to simply cite the relevant sources at the end of each paragraph (with the exception of the reception section). Is this appropriate and does it adequately maintain WP:INTEGRITY?

Thanks, TipsyElephant (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a neat podcast project! To address the specific questions you pose:

• I see why you're unsure about the quotation marks, since they kind of clutter the synopsis. I think you should tone down the hedging, especially on the second reference to a fictional element. The synopsis is the one section where we do let the in-universe perspective exist a little more strongly, since contextually the point of the synopsis is to relate the "facts" of the fictional universe; readers already know it's not "real". Consider the synopsis at Lord of the Rings, where it doesn't hedge or quote things like the Shire, Black Riders, etc. Also, in case you're not aware, there's some writing advice at WP:PLOTSUM -- though other than the quotations this strikes me as a very good synopsis.
• I think your paraphrase of Mississippi Valley Conservancy is appropriate (it's very explicit that these groups are rare in this context), except that the source emphasizes that the show contains characters uncommon in climate change media, whereas the article as-is attributes that to the cast.
• I don't see the need for subsequent broadcast dates unless there's something super-interesting about them that I am missing. For citations, it looks like the norm for TV episodes is not to cite release dates or synopses (based on eg this FA). In general for synopses the work itself is understood to be the implied source of all summarized information. (Relatedly, you don't need the current citations in the overall synopsis, but I also don't feel a need to remove them, especially since they're currently the best way for people to see which episode various plot events occur in.)
• I think the reception section is very effective at grouping the reception conceptually by theme, so the flow is good. The first sentence of each paragraph might be on the borderline in terms of editorializing, but for me it works and I wouldn't advise a change, though others might have a different opinion.
• What about "Academic study" as the title for that section? Or "Related research"? I definitely think "outcomes" is not helpful as a section header; it suggests (to me) something about student outcomes in school, like what's covered at Montessori education#Studies
• I think grouping the cites at the end of the paragraph is acceptable -- technically, it's acceptable to use no inline cites at all, and provide a general references section at the end -- but I do think it is desirable to have sources a little closer to the material they support. Most important in my eyes, citing individual sentences makes it easier for future editors to add new information or re-organize existing material. I expect the current citation format would be fine for a Good Article, but not fine for a Featured Article.

Some other thoughts I had while reading:

• I made some of my own prose edits, and I want to flag that the transition phrases "whereas" and "while" can only be part of subordinate clauses; if you want to start a sentence with them, they need to be followed by an independent clause in the format Whereas X, Y. (or in the other order, X, whereas Y.). Grammatically, two sentences like X. Whereas Y. doesn't work (and "while" is the same).
• I think adding episode synopses is the next key area for improvement. I'd like to know more about the talks, too!
• Is it "Fume Town" or "Fumetown"? The title of Ep2 suggests the latter

I also did a light prose edit to address some things that caught my eye. Overall this strikes me as a very strong article, and I'd encourage you to nominate it as a Good Article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: thank you for reviewing the article and answering my questions. I think I've implemented most of your recommendations and I have a couple of follow up questions. Do you think I need to replace the quotation marks in the synopsis with some other kind of emphasis like italics? And are you suggesting I use quotation marks the first time and then omit them if the word or phrase is reused, or are you recommending I completely remove them? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are many viable approaches for the synopsis and quotation marks, though I don't think italics are a good idea -- italics would imply that the terms are from a foreign language. I think where you use a phrase like "known as", it's not necessary to also use quotation marks. Or, you could use quotation marks on first reference and remove them on later reference. To be clear, I don't think the current state of the article is wrong exactly -- I just think the current version is over-cautious, and might read more smoothly with a bit less quotation. Actually, I'm going to give it an editing pass myself; if you prefer your version, of course feel free to revert, but maybe it will clarify what I was imagining. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having made a quick edit, one thing I notice is that unusual capitalization in itself signals to the reader that The Hands (for example) are not just regular human hands but some kind on in-universe concept. (So, do be consistent with capitalization between the overall summary and the episode synopses!) In general I follow the principle that readers do expect fiction in a synopsis and just need one cue when something being introduced which is unique to the fiction world-- a quotation mark or capitalization or a phrase like "known as" or an explanation. I find that helps the writing read a bit more elegantly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]