Talk:Be Right Back/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing USS Callister, I think I'll take a crack at this one, too.

Comparisons

• Several other Black Mirror episodes are Good Articles. Let's maintain that standard!
• Lead section in line with the others, slightly shorter but structured the same and doesn't appear to be lacking content.
• Infobox as standard
• Good plot summary - obviously shorter than more complex episodes. Does not leave anything important out, and resists from including extensive detail unnecessary to the section's purpose.
• Same/similar structure of Production section. Good contextualising introductory sentences. Again, slightly shorter, with Casting & Filming condensed into one. The structure of C&F flows well, though, and being a pre-Netflix episode there are likely less sources and discussion on the topic and so less content, so the merge is not detrimental to the quality. Appropriate use of quote box.

• This section doesn't need the series 2 trailer in a link, but the episode one is alright.

• Yep, removed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• A little search makes it seem like there isn't anything additional re. music/marketing/difficulties/other production to add.

• Well-sourced Analysis section. However, it's more quote-heavy and staccato than the other articles. (More on this in Style)
• Has comparisons as standard with Black Mirror articles, the separation here is a different structure to others, but appropriate for content and in ways mirroring that on the Nosedive (Black Mirror) article.
• Noting that the Reception/Critical reception sections have slightly different headings, but this doesn't seem to have an effect on their contents. It's also shorter on "Be Right Back", as per expectations for pre-Netflix episode.

Style

• Analysis section:
  • It doesn't flow very well, and reads more like a list of analyses than a well-written collection of them. It needs some expansion and a little review of style guide - not taking this as a big issue, because of the main editor's history of good writing in this regard.
  • I'd move the second paragraph to be the first one, combining and expanding it with some of the more significant comments from the current first paragraph (e.g. Brooker's)
    • Interesting idea. I've shuffled them around a bit. See what you think. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, the paragraph with the New Yorker comments on privacy is mostly made of quotations from this source. It wouldn't be very reasonable to remove some quotations or paraphrase the well-written opinion. Is there a way of expanding this part so it is less of a block quotation? There's also some different context for the realism quotation that needs clarifying so as not to obscure the meaning.
    • Hmm, it's been a while since I read that source. I could never decide whether it fit in Analysis or Production. I've moved it back into Production, paraphrasing heavily, as part of the technology paragraph under "Casting and filming". But I have left an analysis comment from Harvey in that section, attached to its technology paragraph. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a little misquote thrown up by copyvio check - here. "examines our own mortality and our tendency to play God" should be "...our desire to play..."
    • Nice catch—fixed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to help support re-drafts of this section if you have a draft space
• In the "Comparison to other media" section (which is also a bit like a list but not as bad), wouldn't it be better to change "...Mary Shelley's 1800s novel Frankenstein." to simply "...Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."?
  • Well I wanted to give some historical context but I suppose it's famous enough and already linked. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Prose (besides Analysis section, as noted) is overall very good, with special note to the Conception and Writing section - except for its last paragraph, which could use some clarity.
  • Yep, I've reworded a bit. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Good scope of sources, and all reliable.
• Appropriate number of sources for article length, appropriate number of refs to support everything.
• No original research apparent.
• Passes 2

Coverage

• Question: has the episode been compared to Ex Machina (film), a later film, which also stars Gleeson? Gleeson's character is challenged to determine if an AI human robot is actually capable of human feeling, before getting dark. It might be useful to note if it has. (google shows some promising links)
  • Would suggest including this in Comparisons to other media, even as a reverse comparison if sources do it that way
    • Hmm, there are a few comparisons but they're quite limited and usually only in the context of Gleeson's body of work as a whole (e.g. the passing reference here). I'm not sure it's significant enough to include—I'm sure "Be Right Back" has been compared to hundreds of movies but we can only include in-depth comparisons. (Though I'm sure the comparison is apt and the movie looks interesting.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Everything mentioned relates to topic well.
• I think the soundtrack was released as an original album? However, there isn't otherwise discussion of the episode's music, so not sure where this would go.
  • Curious. It's certainly a Spotify album released by Pope (which in fact I've listened to several times). But I can't find any sources discussing this, or the soundtrack at all. (By the way, I've added a sentence saying Pope was the composer under "Casting and filming". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Could be discussed if the rumours of a sequel and the use of the episode name as marketing for future episodes is relevant enough to be included per 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"); this doesn't need to be done before becoming a Good Article because it's not so intrinsic to the topic that not including it would fail 3a ("addresses the main aspects")
  • Yes, I think its usage in Bandersnatch warrants a sentence (which I've put in the first "Production" paragraph). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Easily meets neutrality, giving due weight to a myriad of critics. Passes 4

Stability

• No edit wars, not subject to significant updates or changes. Passes 5

Illustration

• Could do with one or two more images. Is there one of Atwell or Gleeson available? Specifically, it might be good to have one of Atwell by where it says she was a fan?
  • Added an Atwell image. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Good use of present images.

Copyright

• Scary-looking copyvio report but examining it comes up clean. Passes 2d
• There are some sources that the article takes perhaps excessive quotations from, which could instead be summarised.
  • Yep, I agree. I've started going through and copyediting, and will do the rest later. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Some great work! I still feel the Analysis section is a bit too list-y, are there ways to ideologically connect the different critiques of it? Some of it has been improved in this way, it's better, but the (new) second paragraph sticks out as still a list of quotes. That's the only remaining thing, though, and with the improvements it's only a minor style thing! Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I've had another go—I wasn't quite happy with the first paragraph either as it split up some of the grief comments. There are now three paragraphs instead of two, dealing with (in order): grief; tone; technology and its effects. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I moved one sentence and added some connecting phrases; great work and good structure to the section! I think it definitely reads more like a description than a list now.
          • Good Article unlocked. Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the edits and for the review! Your feedback is much appreciated. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.