Talk:Nosedive (Black Mirror)/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: Hameltion (talk · contribs) 14:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. (This is my first GA review, so let me know if I botch anything.) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Production

Several paragraphs end without a reference and need them
Done — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This could use some subheaders for better division
Personally I prefer how it looks without any subheadings, but Done anyway (moving a paragraph in the process - this diff). I can change it back if you want. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

This is mostly a bunch of quotations strung together and is a tad too long; see the essay WP:RECEPTION for how to improve it
Okay, I've made a big overhaul of this section. Do you want me to incorporate the episode ranking reviews into this as well, or leave them in their own section? I was also unsure about how to specify the review being described: I've gone for the publication for quantitative ratings, and the author's surname for comments (though Sophie Lee and Benjamin Lee have their full names given to distinguish them). These changes have actually upped the word count, but I don't really agree that the section was too long in the first place (it's not a focus issue as it's all on-topic, and I don't think it's overly detailed). I'm open to further criticism in this section though; please tell me what you think. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better thematically. A way to cut down on the overall length is to remove quotations, instead opting to describe more succinctly what the reviewer meant, more like it is in the lead. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced some of the quotes with prose. Is any further work necessary? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should lead with Rotten Tomatoes like Steve Jobs (film)#Critical response Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I searched on Rotten Tomatoes (and Metacritic) but it does not have a rating for individual episodes of Black Mirror, only seasons. I've added an external link for Rotten Tomatoes though. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part about rankings should be made into a list instead
Done (is that type of list what you were picturing or did you want a different format?) and this reminded me that I found a load more rankings, so I've added them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant like this - United 93 (film)#Top 10 lists Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Yes, that does look very visually good. I've incorporated the actual comments in the rankings into the sections above. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Rotten Tomatoes thing I probably should have looked up. The reception section seems to keep growing, so I'll try to describe the way to make it the best:

The first paragraph is much too long, and doesn't say much of substance, unfortunately. It would be improved if it were written in summary style of the rest of the section. Unlike the lead, it should be cited, but there doesn't need to be quotations that add very little. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid 'A said B'." I would suggest a thorough read of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, because while the rest of the paragraphs are thematically grouped, direct quotations are overused and, simply put, too much is included. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"well-received" in the first sentence should have a citation Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly well-received" doesn't have a source; it's a summary of the reviews in the article. This is common practice e.g. Sardines (Inside No. 9)#Reception. I've worked more on the reception section, which still has maybe more direct quotes than the essay examples, but those are FA rather than GA standard (in fact, the "Before" in example 2 seems to have been taken from some time after the article reached GA). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not acquainted well enough with the differences between FA and GA standards, but it's still got a "he said, she said" feel, and it just goes right into calling people by their last name and not linking them with their publications (as do some parts of Analysis). There's no need to say things like "such as Setranah and Hill", because if it's a major criticism then the individual reviewers aren't important. Take, for instance, the second sentence of the paragraph right next to the Richter picture. It has three quotations from three separate reviewers, and should instead be written as more of an overview of reviewers' consensus. Whenever a sentence is like, "A said, 'b', while C said, 'd',", it should be reworked into, "Several critics noted the visual appeal of the episode, calling it one of the most enjoyable of the series. Netflix's larger budget, for instance, ..." Individual quotations can still pepper the section, but right now it's not very cohesive. Also, there is no one named "Sophie Lee" and it's Hall, not Hill. Make sure that people's names are right. And Setranah is writing for a student paper. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about the name mistakes; no idea how that happened - I've gone through all the sources and double-checked. Is there a problem with student newspapers? The only discussion on this I can find is this, which doesn't have much of a consensus other than "sometimes reliable", and here it's only being used as a citation for the author's own opinion rather than any uncorroborated facts.
The essay you quote has two examples, one with exclusively critics' names and the other with (almost) exclusively publication names. I think either style is fair, but not mixing and matching or using both everywhere. In the Analysis section, since the sources are discussed all in one block rather than cited multiple times, it makes sense to me to include both author and publication, but I can remove the publication if you feel strongly about it though. I can also do first name and surname upon the reviewer's first mention in the article.
The problem with "Several critics noted the visual appeal of the episode, calling it one of the most enjoyable of the series." is that it is a factually incorrect and vague summary of those three opinions. One of the viewers is calling it the most visually-stunning of the series, not several saying it's enjoyable. The others are then more specific than "visual appeal" – it's important to note the visuals have pastel aesthetics, and you've omitted "stellar production values" entirely. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the semi-haphazard way I've gone about reviewing this article. Here are edits that I've made; let me know if anything needs changing. I made the change of adding reviewers' full names and publications for first mention. The only things I can think of that I'd like you to do are add alt text to images and make sure italics in references are correct (like GameSpot instead of GameSpot). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no need to apologise. I have no complaints with your review, though if you're not confident with it, the instruction page suggests asking a GA mentor. I've added alt text to the Richter image but the captions for the others should be sufficient (commonly alt text just repeats the caption but this is a mistake – MOS:ALT says "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text"). I've done further ref work, and removed your addition of the word "just", as well as a few other small bits of cleanup. I think the article's in a much better state than it was before the review, so thank you very much. If you're satisfied with things then I'm happy, but if you want to get a third opinion then that's fair enough. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've asked for a second opinion with the talk page template just to be safe, but the state of this article is strong. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just noticed you changed things in the lead; it may be a little too specific now. Saying "along with fictional works such as" could be replaced with "along with fictional works that deal with..." or something that explains the comparisons better. -- Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what would be best here. There's leaving it as it is (too specific), saying "along with fictional works that deal with social media" (too vague and obvious) or "along with fictional works that deal with gender and obsession in relation to social media" (still a bit vague) or "along with Community episode "App Development and Condiments", which features a similar rating system, and works The Circle and Ingrid Goes West that explore gender and social media" (undue / too specific). Any suggestions? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something more like the middle one ("still a bit vague") is best, since right now it's kind of undue weight on the specificity. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

This section should probably be changed to something titled "Analysis", so that it touches upon themes rather than simply similarities
Done but now the SNL paragraph doesn't fit with this section so I've left it under "Reception" with its own subheading. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So that the section is more of an analysis, you should describe the comparison itself more than what it was compared with. For example, the sentence "The episode has also been compared to the 2003 novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and to the 1980s films Clockwise and Planes, Trains and Automobiles," doesn't tell me anything if I don't know what the themes of these other works are. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's no need for the subheading; just move it above the rankings Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1980s films, I can't expand any further as that would be original research. But I've added to the others, particularly the Pacific Standard article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'd strike the the Clockwise and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles clause then, since it doesn't add much without the context. The second Analysis paragraph is based entirely upon one source; this may be undue weight unless other sources have written about such portrayals. Not sure where to put SNL. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article says similar things, so I've added a ref and a sentence from it (also shortening the summary of the Pacific Standard article). Also adding a bit on the gender aspect in the Production section while I'm here. And the Business Insider / hedonic treadmill thing fits better under Analysis. As for SNL, I could move it back down the Reception section and put it under a subheading "In popular culture" or "Cultural impact", or leave it where it is. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNL could go just before the top ten lists and the section named simply "Reception". The Betancourt/Casas paragraph doesn't make much sense now; perhaps the specificity of the examples detracts from making the point. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: the section above the top ten lists is "Critical reception", not "Reception". I've done another copyedit on Betancourt/Casas; it's hard to balance succinctness, detailedness, focus and clarity so if you want to copyedit it further, that would be fair. It's difficult to work out which bits would confuse a reader, having written the thing myself. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this change. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General

Add links to Wikipedia articles for all works in each reference
Done where Wikipedia articles exist. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure authors are there for all references
Done - all refs have an author other than #54 (BAFTA) and #58 (Emmy), which aren't written by a single person. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hameltion: it's been 8 days and I fear we may be waiting a long time to get a second opinion through that process. I think directly contacting an active user listed at Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor might be more likely to get a speedy response. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion here ... I haven't read through the article in depth but from a quick cursory glance I don't see any obvious remaining howlers - everything I see is backed up with a source and makes sense - so I think a good job has been done on the review. Hameltion, have you done a spot check of the sources to confirm that what's in the article is actually backed up by facts? And don't cite the Daily Mirror, it's a tabloid newspaper and should be avoided wherever articles discuss living people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was saving that source check for when we had finalized the content. Thanks for taking a look! Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Mirror sources. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: ref 4 doesn't say it's in two separate series; ref 14 isn't the article I think you meant to link; "pushes you into the near future" and "parallel reality" aren't cited; ref 16 has a paywall, so is there a quotation you can add to support the filming location?; refs 19 and 20 are podcasts, so I'll just AGF; ref 21a doesn't seem to have any of those quotations; ref 29 should appear more than once in its paragraph; 49a doesn't support repetition or predictability; references should be in ascending order. Let me know if anything I just wrote doesn't make sense. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 17:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ref #4 doesn't mention two separate series. I've searched long and hard for a source mentioning this explicitly but have never been able to find one – this Tweet doesn't really count as reliable. I've been treating it as just an obvious fact – 12 were ordered; 6 aired in series 3; 6 aired in series 4. I can say something like "the first six episodes aired as series 3" ([1][2] are sources if they're really necessary) but then that repeats the previous paragraph. Any suggestions on what to do?

I guess it doesn't need to be sourced, but I'm pretty sure the tweet is reliable enough to include. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #14 URL fixed (scroll down too far on a Slate article and it shows you another one and changes the URL – very annoying)

Great. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"pushes you into the near future" and "parallel reality" are cited to ref #12 (no need to cite the same ref two sentences in a row)

Thanks. For whatever reason, I couldn't find it in that ref, but I did now. Whoops --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, they didn't have that 4 months ago. It's just a free registration thing, not a paywall. Ref updated. I don't think adding quotes to the ref is either required for verifiability or useful (considering their blandness) – but for what it's worth, those facts are based off:

"London studio Painting Practice is responsible for the VFX, motion graphics and production design on Black Mirror."

"The episode was filmed in South Africa"

"The CG landscape was created by Dan May, VFX art director on Nosedive and co-founder of Painting Practice."

So, ref 18 doesn't seem to have the filming location, unless I'm missing it. What is a quotation that supports on an island an hour from Cape Town, South Africa; "San Junipero" was also filmed in South Africa.? Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I missed out the quote [from Collins in the Creative Review source] "I found a small island about an hour out of Cape Town, which was almost like a fake version of America." — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that literally mean an island? Or could it be metaphorical? I don't recall seeing island-like features in the episode. Also, is there a source for "San Junipero" being filmed in South Africa? Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's not metaphorical. The fictional work itself is not set on an island so I assume that's why they wouldn't include any island-like features in the episode. That source also says "Another episode, San Junipero, was also shot in South Africa". I thought the Debrief one mentioned it also (what's really confusing me is that it mentions "Filming Locations" in the title) but apparently it doesn't, so I've removed it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ref #21 confusion – it was meant to be sourced to #1, also an Independent source – fixed.

Gotcha

Cited ref #29 twice in that paragraph.

Thanks

Somehow got confused between the two #9 ranking reviews – #49 was meant to be #64 ("this episode's overall arc is a bit predictable")

Thanks

There is no guideline or consensus about refs' arrangement in ascending order. I usually think it looks nicer but in the case of the first paragraph of Reception, I think it makes more sense to mention "The Independent and The Guardian" and then cite those sources in that order. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Have you thought about possibly moving the page to Nosedive (Black Mirror) - is this really the primary topic? Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of the GA criteria, but it absolutely is the primary topic. Note that "Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary" (WP:PTOPIC), this is the only article about a subject "Nosedive" (e.g. Mighty Ducks (TV series) has Nosedive as a main character but it's certainly not the sole focus of the article) and the article receives thousands more views per day than every other article listed at Nosedive (disambiguation) combined ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Nosedive%7CDescent_(aeronautics)%7CTrapeze_(sailing)%7CStock_market_crash%7CChen_(singer)%7CDynamic_Duo_(South_Korean_duo)%7CMighty_Ducks_(TV_series)%7CGaye_Bykers_on_Acid ). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To play the devil's advocate, "nosedive" is a word that may have significance that lasts beyond this television episode. But it's fine how it is right now. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not Wiktionary. If you disagree, start a Requested Move but this is not the place for that discussion. Are there any further issues? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title is fine anyway. No more outstanding issues. You've done a great job working on this! --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.