Talk:Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 07:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Will put the comments in a short while!

Lead

• "...was the most experimental episode of Inside No. 9's" - sounds like speculation, rephrase.
  • Rephrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Gein's Family Giftshop" - dead end
  • It is, but there's nothing wrong with redlinks. See WP:REDLINK. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• Goes up right after the Lead
  • Why do you say that? I'm not aware of any guideline to the contrary, and I'd rather keep it consistent with my other Inside No. 9 articles. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's standard procedure to put the plot of an episode next to the lead so as to acquaint the reader with all that went through in the instalment, that helps them relate better to all the unfamiliar names that keep popping in the production/reception sections. I feel that it's better that way but let me see if I can get any examples that support your way of doing it! Though I think one works just fine too. NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the production-first structure as it feels more chronological- the episode is produced, it's shown, and then there's a response. It's how I did "Sardines", "A Quiet Night In" and "Last Gasp", which are now featured. MOS:TV says that articles "tend" to follow the plot-first structure, while MOS:FILM (which MOS:TV claims to mirror) says that "the structuring and ordering of the sections—with the exception of the lead—is left to editorial judgment". I note, though, that this is Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it works both ways, and yes it's a personal choice. So, looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• The images fit better in the production section.
  • Agreed. I've moved things around a bit. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Production

• Source the running time.
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "... because they did not look sufficiently like offices." - "sufficiently like offices" sounds awkward, rephrase.
  • Ok. Gone for "enough like offices". Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "story was mostly filmed in order." - I don't understand how that is important.
  • The filming order will orient the cast and production team to a certain extent; sometimes, for example, the last scene will be filmed first (Harry Potter enthusiasts used to make a lot of the fact that the epilogue was written long before the last few books had been written, for example). Pemberton and Shearsmith felt it useful to mention it, but I agree that it's not the most important thing; I could remove it if you'd prefer. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I get the idea, but without any preceding information of why it's relevant i think it's better to remove it. NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "This, Shearsmith said, felt" - Shearsmith said that this felt.
  • Sure, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Gein's Family Giftshop - fix
  • There's nothing wrong with redlinks; see also my Signpost piece on the subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The link for the same in the lead does the job? NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough- removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Open with a line that summarises the overall reception. NumerounovedantTalk 09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the section can use some re-organaising, quotes from.the smae reviews better stick together and only be quoted seperatrly in case of discussing important parts of the episode. This avoids the over linking as you have to source a review only once. But that's an opinion, you can work around it if you want. NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree; I structure reception sections thematically. This is generally considered (especially at FAC) better practice than just listing the views of different critics. In this article, the first paragraph gives across the "not as good as others" vibe, the second is the "actually pretty good" vibe, the third paragraph looks at casting and writing, the fourth looks at the CCTV aspect of the episode and the last looks at the ending. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I see your point particularly because of the polarised reception of the episode. So this works out on an overall front, but I have some concerns -

• Sources not required for the first line.
  • Ok. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "the freelance" - freelance
  • No- that would make a false title, which is nonstandard in British English. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "...Phoebe-Jane Boyd, writing for the entertainment website Den of Geek, said that the episode "had another set of fantastic guest stars",[39] and the comedy critic Bruce Dessau praised the performances."- The performances of the guest stars? because the sentence is in continuation of the previous which talks about the guest stars. If so mention the " performances of the guest stars ", if not it would work better as 2 different sentences.
  • I've adjusted this a little. It now has a sentence about the guest stars, then the performances, then the writing. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "The set-up, Dessau said" - Dessau said that the set-up
• "which, Dessau said, "makes " - "he" said NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In response to the last two, I've changed this to "Dessau said that the set-up gave the episode "its haunting flavour". Viewers do not just see Andy, but also streams from other cameras, which, for Dessau, "makes the viewer both intrigued and anxious"." The last male mentioned is Andy, so I'm not keen on replacing the second "Dessau" with "he"/"him". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Ref 2 is dead NumerounovedantTalk 09:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref 2 was this page, which is still working fine for me; I've added an archive link. Was this the one you were worried about? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the link wasn't working for me earlier, but looks good now! NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review; there's one thing outstanding which I'll get to shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've responded to all of your comments. Thanks again. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Final Comments

It's a good comprehensive article, just the few suggestions and I'll be happy to go ahead with the result. Good work! NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@J Milburn: Good job! NumerounovedantTalk 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Many thanks for your review and quick replies! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: It was a pleasure working with you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)