Template:Did you know nominations/The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) edit

Improved to Good Article status by J Milburn (talk). Self nominated at 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Promoted to good article status on July 29, satisfying recency requirement. Article is long enough and uses in-line citations (except in the Plot section, which I have been told, to my surprise, is allowed). The cited source here refers to "bringing modern references into a setting which is essentially rooted in the past, for comic effect," but I'm not seeing the hook fact in the source. Could you clarify, J Milburn? Also, QPQ required. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I'll get to the QPQ. As well as the Gazette, I'm relying on the Dessau source, which says "Elsewhere seemingly casual asides instil the viewer with a deep sense of dread and foreboding, such as when Katy wants to use her mobile and discovers there is no signal because the house, as Hector says, is "a dead zone"." More about bringing gothic horror into a modern environment is offered in this interview. I hope this clarifies- I appreciate that the hook is merging information from several sources, but I do not feel that it constitutes novel synthesis; it's more of a summary of what I write in paragraph 3 of the production section. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed: Merrill G. Burlingame. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

QPQ is now complete. I try not to be a stickler, but I reviewed the other sources that you cited (including the video), and didn't think they directly supported the hook fact. If you want to propose an alternate hook, I'd be happy to review. Otherwise, if you want to request a second review, I would take no offense at all, just to make sure I'm not being to nit-picky. Cbl62 (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cbl62: That's quite alright. Do you feel I need to change the article? How about this:

This is supported directly by the Gazette source: "Hitchcock, Hammer Horror and perhaps even a little Rocky Horror were clearly informing this episode from the off, and one aspect of what made it so enjoyable was seeing this genre transplanted into the present day. Tabitha and Hector, the spooky owners of the house, talked about being offered "something called broadbands" and were armed with a taser during the final act, bringing modern references into a setting which is essentially rooted in the past, for comic effect."

Hmmm ... The hooks certainly capture the gist of the commentary and are therefore essentially accurate. I'd probably be inclined to give an OK, but given recent criticisms of the DYK process, and since none of the sources say precisely what the hook say, I think it's best to seek a second opinion before giving this a green light. So ... could an experienced DYK editor weigh in with a second opinion here? Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

- I haven't looked at all the criteria but Cbl62 has given this a review but asks for a second opinion. I agree with you @Cbl62 - the quote above supports the hooks as written. Victuallers (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)