Talk:La Couchette/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 08:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll review. Comments should be up within a few days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay; I got sidetracked. Working on this now and will post the review when finished. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Production and development
- "The first series of Inside No. 9 consisted of six episodes, each with a different cast and collection of characters, aired from February 2014. The programme was inspired by an episode of the first series of Psychoville, which was in turn inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's Rope." belongs in the main series page, not here
- Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the given source saying this episode was filmed in only one room
- I was referring to the episode of Psychoville; it's gone now, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The BBC ordered a second series of Inside No. 9 before the first episode had aired" belongs in the main series page, not here
- Gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the given reference supporting "As each episode of Inside No. 9 features new characters, the writers were able to attract actors who might have been unwilling to commit to an entire series"
- "Part of the pleasure of anthology format is that it's easier to attract a cast without the commitment of a series." Do you feel I've extrapolated too much, here? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith with the text cited to DVD commentary
- Not sure if "hard" in "director Guillem Morales worked hard on a story board" is necessary
- There will be a reason I wrote that, but I can't remember what it was. I'll check the source. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The quote in question is this, from Shearsmith: "Guillem, the director, has been very industrious; he's really worked hard on the storyboard. [...] You've got to be really prepared and know what you're doing when you're in such a small space, so he's had every shot worked out, down to every single moment of the script. [...] I think he's really captured it in really inventive ways within that tiny little space." If you can think of an alternative way to capture this than the current wording ("Prior to filming, director Guillem Morales worked hard on a story board. For Shearsmith, the small space added to the need to meticulously plan the production process; he explained that every shot was worked out in advance."), I'd be happy to hear it! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- There will be a reason I wrote that, but I can't remember what it was. I'll check the source. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The given references don't say anything about Hesmondhalgh being "surprised"
- From the video on the press release: "...I thought it'd be done by some sort of motorised thing but it's actually just two lads behind the set shaking it..." It was contrary to her expectation, so I said she was surprised- do you think that's unreasonable? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- My bad Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- From the video on the press release: "...I thought it'd be done by some sort of motorised thing but it's actually just two lads behind the set shaking it..." It was contrary to her expectation, so I said she was surprised- do you think that's unreasonable? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Plot
- Excluding cast member names and the note, this is currently 622 words long. It should be reduced to 200 to 500 words per WP:TVPLOT.
- I'll look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Currently 519 words. Good work on reduction so far, but still needs more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now below 500 words. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Currently 519 words. Good work on reduction so far, but still needs more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Analysis
- The quote box is unsourced and unnecessary
- I thought it was a nice illustration of the unlikability of the characters, as well as adding some visual interest to the article. I can remove it if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Remove it Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Remove it Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was a nice illustration of the unlikability of the characters, as well as adding some visual interest to the article. I can remove it if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Shearsmith’n’Pembertonism" should be "Shearsmith'n'Pembertonism" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
- Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The characters are generally not particularly likable people" is POV, and I don't see it supported within the given sources
- They're portrayed as unpleasant people- that's basically the point. I'm not sure it's POV, in the same way I'm not sure it's POV to say how Homer Simpson isn't the brightest spark. The sources say "the most appealing character was a corpse" (The Telegraph), "Inside No 9 brought together several (mostly) unpleasant individuals with competing motivations" (Independent) and, after most of the review being given over to a description of how annoying/unpleasant everyone was, "Hell is, indeed, other people." (Liverpool Echo).
- A more neutral thing to say would be "the characters are described as not particularly likable people" or "the characters are depicted as not particularly likable people"
- I've gone for "Commentators stressed how the character are generally not particularly likable people". Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks better now Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've gone for "Commentators stressed how the character are generally not particularly likable people". Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- A more neutral thing to say would be "the characters are described as not particularly likable people" or "the characters are depicted as not particularly likable people"
- They're portrayed as unpleasant people- that's basically the point. I'm not sure it's POV, in the same way I'm not sure it's POV to say how Homer Simpson isn't the brightest spark. The sources say "the most appealing character was a corpse" (The Telegraph), "Inside No 9 brought together several (mostly) unpleasant individuals with competing motivations" (Independent) and, after most of the review being given over to a description of how annoying/unpleasant everyone was, "Hell is, indeed, other people." (Liverpool Echo).
- I don't see anything in the source saying Les is racist
- Fair enough- I've switched to "xenophobic". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Strangers on a Train is not explicitly mentioned in the attributed reference
- If you're talking about Ellen Jones's article, she writes "...the train setting in "La Couchette" also added a Hitchcockian elegance to Pemberton and Shearsmith's usual mix of gothic-horror influences. And while there were only two strangers on Hitch's train...". She's assuming (unfairly, if you ask me) that readers will be familiar enough with Hitchcock to know what she means, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes that's the one, but not everyone reading that article will automatically understand her reference Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but I'm not sure that means that I shouldn't include it in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd remove it since we can't just assume readers will know right away what it refers to Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. We permit non-English sources, and permit sources which use very technical language. The question can't be whether "readers will know right away what it refers to". The pertinent question seems to be whether I am engaging in inappropriate OR in reading between the lines, or whether I'm just reading off what is already there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like inappropriate WP:OR Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, but I have removed the mention. The same film is mentioned later in the section anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like inappropriate WP:OR Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree. We permit non-English sources, and permit sources which use very technical language. The question can't be whether "readers will know right away what it refers to". The pertinent question seems to be whether I am engaging in inappropriate OR in reading between the lines, or whether I'm just reading off what is already there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd remove it since we can't just assume readers will know right away what it refers to Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but I'm not sure that means that I shouldn't include it in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes that's the one, but not everyone reading that article will automatically understand her reference Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you're talking about Ellen Jones's article, she writes "...the train setting in "La Couchette" also added a Hitchcockian elegance to Pemberton and Shearsmith's usual mix of gothic-horror influences. And while there were only two strangers on Hitch's train...". She's assuming (unfairly, if you ask me) that readers will be familiar enough with Hitchcock to know what she means, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the attributed source explicitly mentioning Horror Express
- You're right. Rephrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reception
- The video link is unnecessary
- I disagree- what could be better than a clip of the episode when it's provided by the copyright holder? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Links tend not to be given in this form, including those for videos. I can't think of any article offhand that uses them in such form. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a particular guideline which you think it violates? I agree that the template is fairly unusual, but I think this is a good example of an appropriate time to use it. (I know this isn't a dealbreaker, but I do note that it's used in a few FAs!) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- No guideline that I know of is against it, simply doesn't look like common practice. Do link to any FA's you know of that use it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Sardines (Inside No. 9) and A Quiet Night In, at least. The template's used on over 3500 articles, including a number of highly viewed pages. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- No guideline that I know of is against it, simply doesn't look like common practice. Do link to any FA's you know of that use it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a particular guideline which you think it violates? I agree that the template is fairly unusual, but I think this is a good example of an appropriate time to use it. (I know this isn't a dealbreaker, but I do note that it's used in a few FAs!) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Links tend not to be given in this form, including those for videos. I can't think of any article offhand that uses them in such form. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree- what could be better than a clip of the episode when it's provided by the copyright holder? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Daily Telegraph" should read The Daily Telegraph
- Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith the Broadcast and The Times references (which require a subscription)
- I can provide you with the text, if you like? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would help Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can provide you with the text, if you like? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- It would help to include more on the PopMatters review than simply commentary on guest stars
- All it says other than the guest star issue is "“La Couchette” is another tightly trapped episode (the camera never leaves the confines of the train carriage) whose resolution is revealed via a conversation in German. And, of course, the word macabre still applies—death, violence, and disturbing behaviour abound." I'm not sure what there is there worth including. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- All it says other than the guest star issue is "“La Couchette” is another tightly trapped episode (the camera never leaves the confines of the train carriage) whose resolution is revealed via a conversation in German. And, of course, the word macabre still applies—death, violence, and disturbing behaviour abound." I'm not sure what there is there worth including. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- References
- PopMatters shouldn't be italicized
- Do you mean it should be? The MOS leans towards italicising, I prefer not to (and don't here). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what part of MoS says to italicize it, but non-print works tend not to be italicized Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's basically what I thought (and what I like!) but I was called on this at FAC- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works specifies that "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." I think PopMatters would count as an "online magazine". Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, italicize it within "Reception" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, it's italicised it all cases, now. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, italicize it within "Reception" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's basically what I thought (and what I like!) but I was called on this at FAC- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works specifies that "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." I think PopMatters would count as an "online magazine". Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what part of MoS says to italicize it, but non-print works tend not to be italicized Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean it should be? The MOS leans towards italicising, I prefer not to (and don't here). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The Telegraph" should read The Daily Telegraph
- Daily Mail (including "Scottish Daily Mail") and Daily Mirror aren't exactly high quality sources
- I agree that the Daily Mail is a very poor paper, but I wouldn't have thought it was too bad for TV reviews, especially given that Christopher Stevens (the author of the longer piece) is a serious journalist who has worked for better papers and who has written respectable popular (as opposed to academic) books on television. I've removed the Mirror ref, but I don't think it's too bad, as far as tabloids go, and Jane Simon is a professional television critic (the information was fairly uncontroversial). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll admit I didn't expect a Daily Mail contributor to have such high credentials :P, but at least the dubious "Scottish Daily Mail" can go. Does Stevens by any chance post his reviews on his website (similar to Roger Ebert's reviews being on both his site and Chicago Sun-Times)? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not- and I see why that would be good! I've removed the Scottish Daily Mail source. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll admit I didn't expect a Daily Mail contributor to have such high credentials :P, but at least the dubious "Scottish Daily Mail" can go. Does Stevens by any chance post his reviews on his website (similar to Roger Ebert's reviews being on both his site and Chicago Sun-Times)? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the Daily Mail is a very poor paper, but I wouldn't have thought it was too bad for TV reviews, especially given that Christopher Stevens (the author of the longer piece) is a serious journalist who has worked for better papers and who has written respectable popular (as opposed to academic) books on television. I've removed the Mirror ref, but I don't think it's too bad, as far as tabloids go, and Jane Simon is a professional television critic (the information was fairly uncontroversial). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if "Herts & Essex Observer", "Liverpool Echo", "Beyondthejoke.co.uk", "Chortle.co.uk", or "Den of Geek" are reliable
- Herts and Essex Observer is a minor local paper owned by Local World, and I'm only citing it for the interview anyway. The Liverpool Echo is a major regional paper owned by Trinity Mirror, and Paddy Shennan is a professional television critic with the paper. Beyondthejoke.co.uk is the personal site of professional comedy critic and published author Bruce Dessau, so should be considered a reliable self-published source. Chortle.co.uk isn't a source I'd normally cite, but the interview is a genuine one (it's also linked to the Chortle Awards, a not insignificant comedy prize). Den of Geek is owned by Dennis Publishing- there is editorial oversight, and there are "staff writers" (I don't know if they're paid, but I'm not sure if that should matter). It's not my favourite source, but I think it's above the bar for unremarkable claims. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Herts and Essex Observer is a minor local paper owned by Local World, and I'm only citing it for the interview anyway. The Liverpool Echo is a major regional paper owned by Trinity Mirror, and Paddy Shennan is a professional television critic with the paper. Beyondthejoke.co.uk is the personal site of professional comedy critic and published author Bruce Dessau, so should be considered a reliable self-published source. Chortle.co.uk isn't a source I'd normally cite, but the interview is a genuine one (it's also linked to the Chortle Awards, a not insignificant comedy prize). Den of Geek is owned by Dennis Publishing- there is editorial oversight, and there are "staff writers" (I don't know if they're paid, but I'm not sure if that should matter). It's not my favourite source, but I think it's above the bar for unremarkable claims. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Overall
- Well-written?
- Prose quality:
Could be better - Manual of Style compliance: Not exactly
- Prose quality:
- Verifiable?
- Reference layout: Almost
- Reliable sources: Two unreliable sources and five questionable sources
- No original research: Not everything is properly attributed
- Reference layout:
- Broad in coverage?
- Major aspects: It would help to know when specifically this episode was filmed
- Focused: Plot needs to be reduced, and there are other unnecessary bits
- Major aspects:
- Neutral?: One bit of bias found
- Stable?:
Looks OK
- Illustrated, if possible, by images?
- Appropriate licensing: No copyright violations
- Relevance and captioning: I'm not sure if File:La Couchette publicity photograph.jpg provides any benefit
- I didn't use images at first, but others added them. I asked about it here and was told it was OK in this case, and several have passed an image review at FAC. Would you prefer it if I used the poster, rather than this publicity photo? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on what the poster looks like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's here. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Go with the poster; it looks more official Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've used the poster. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Appropriate licensing:
- Pass or Fail?: I'll place this on hold for seven days. The main issue is currently text not supported by references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review. I'll get to this over the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. We'll be good as long as everything is done by July 14th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now passing :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review- it's thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now passing :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. We'll be good as long as everything is done by July 14th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Some sources
editQuoting only the Inside No. 9 sections...
- Chater- "The dark imaginations of Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are back with six more self-contained, bleakly comic dramas set in different locations, all of which have a No 9 on the door. Tonight's opener has echoes of the very first episode of all, in which a diverse assortment of characters at a country house squeezed into a cupboard during a game of sardines. The difference here is that the characters - an anally retentive doctor, a flatulent German, a British couple on the way to their daughter's wedding, a rude Australian backpacker et al - squeeze into a tiny couchette on a train from Paris to Bourg St Maurice. You may think you know where the drama is headed, but don't be so sure ..."
- First Billen- "Outlander Amazon Prime Instant Video**
Inside No 9 BBC Two****
...
The return of Inside No 9, was, in contrast, a delight. Strangers trapped in a train compartment, in this case a TGV couchette, is hardly more original a starting point than time travel, but Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith, who wrote and starred, scored a laugh every few seconds and then a home run with a savage resolution. The remarkable thing - and here credit is shared with a cast that included Mark Benton and Julie Hesmondhalgh - was that the passengers were little more than stereotypes: a drunken German; a tarty Aussie backpacker; a control-freak Englishman and Jack Whitehall (who has become a type all by himself). Yet they were as fresh as the pilgrims in Chaucer's Prologue."
- Second Billen- "Comedy, they say, is subjective. I compared the first story of the new series of Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith's Inside No 9, with Chaucer's Prologue, thereby offending at least one reader who though its "puerile humour" as "flatulent as its one-dimensional figures". If he hated last night's play, The 12 Days of Christine, it will be for different reasons. Humour did not really come into this dark tale, and if Pemberton played one of his usual sympathetic gay men, Sheridan Smith gave tragic depth to its central character, Christine."
- White- "Inside No. 9 (BBC2) 10pm-10:30pm
1.1m (6.1%)
Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton's dark comedy returned with a marginally higher audience than tuned in for its first series launch, which averaged 1.05m (5.7%) in February 2014."