Talk:Sherlock Holmes/to do

Restructure and reflow prose. Present article reads like a random trivia bowl in places, and has very unbalanced sections and subsections.
- I think this is largely done now, the sections are now quite well balanced, though there is still scope for improvement. Samatarou 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor weeding. Unlike the mention of cryptanalysis, the picture of the dancing men is subtrivial and should go. Other "throw-away" facts may need to get the axe as well.
Factor out the lists to list articles so we can annotate them: what sort of stories is Neil Gaiman writing of Holmes? In what movie did George C. Scott portray Holmes, and in what way?
- The answer to the George C. Scott question is "They Might Be Giants" (1971)

NOTE from londonlinks: The above suggestions are even more trivial than the subject matter referred to. [1] - he plays someone who believes he is Sherlock Holmes - although the character isn't called that.

Make a clearer separation between canon, adaptation of canon, and non-canon.
- This seems ok now.Samatarou 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story list is quite detailed, and breaking up the flow of the article. We should float material like this to the end, or split it off to a separate article
- Done. (I have merged the list (bibliography) with the one as the end. Previously there were two main sections entitled "bibilography".) Samatarou 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The detailed procedural "course" on logic (complete with mathematical symbols) could use some friendly rewriting.
(contentious) "Holmesian speculation" as a topic is good. Dumping every author's specific speculations on the reader is not. This sort of fannish/non-canon material makes for poor reading, may also warrant its own article.
- Done. (See "splitting the article" comments below)Samatarou 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency: The article currently refers to the same novel by two different titles: "The Sign of Four" and "The Sign of the Four." Which one is correct?
- Answer: both, although The Sign of the Four says that "The Sign of the Four" was the name under which it was first published, so consistency using this name would make more sense unless there were pertinent variations between different versions. ClickRick (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]