Talk:The Devil of Christmas

Sources

• DANTZIC
• JONES
• BENNION
• THE TIMES
• GILBERT
• HUDDERSFIELD
• JACKSON-
• HUGHES
• RUDD

Country

Was the chalet supposed to be Switzerland or Austria? I have a feeling it was meant to be the latter, and our main article gives the setting as Austria. Also, Krampus is is a character from Austrian folklore, so it would make sense. This is Paul (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right; my mistake. I've fixed it- thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

To add

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/feb/20/steve-pemberton-reece-shearsmith-inside-no-9-series-three

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-reviews/inside-no9-stars-jason-watkins-9864136

"Inside No.9 ITV Player If you weren't permanently put off this series after the rather nasty final couple of minutes of the Christmas special, there is still so much to enjoy in Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton's dark (very dark) comedy, with the first of the new series about the splitting of a bill."

References

Question about Jessica Raine Image

Is it just me or does the image of Jessica Raine seem rather too large for this article? Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; it's because it's a tall narrow image. I've made it a little smaller. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't due to something with the way my computer is set up lol. Excellent work with this article as usual. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

A source used in the article was tagged as being unreliable. While I of course recognise the Daily Mail as a low-quality source, I observe that 1) the cited article is an interview with the show's creators, so can be read as a primary source; 2) it is used solely for uncontroversial claims about the creation/filming of the episode, and, for the most part, relies upon direct quotes; and 3) As far as the Mail goes, this particular article seems to be fairly standard television journalism, and not sensationalist tabloid nonsense. Given this context, and given that there is not, and never has been, an outright ban on citing the Mail, I suggest that the citation in this context is appropriate. I am happy to discuss scaling back the use of that particular article if there are concerns about particular claims made. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for BLPs or events-related stuff, but it should be all right in context of talking about a television series. This is Paul (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Devil of Christmas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Production

   "the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not

   Sure, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   "costumes and props were hired for" - rented? purchased? hired seems like the wrong verb here.

   "Rented" fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   Plot

   At 497 words, it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like. it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.

   ", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.

   Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   "an unpleasant picture of the Krampus" - painting or photograph?

   Switched to "painting". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   What's the purpose of the pill bottle? Did Kathy poison Julian or throw away his medication?

   Threw it away; this is mentioned in passing earlier: "Kathy empties a bottle of tablets". Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   I've rejigged this a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   " is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.

   Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   Maybe something like "Julian learns that the Krampus and Klaus were both roles being played by Kathy's lover, Simon."? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   I've reworked these sentences a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   " pours Champagne" - capital not needed

   That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   I was unaware of this dispute. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   Reception

   "Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."

   I've gone with "For the most part, critics responded extremely positively to "The Devil of Christmas";". Is that an improvement? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

   It is. Thanks Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   "An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"

   I've reworked this. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   Lead

   no concerns

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concerns

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   earwig returned moderate results due to attributed quotes and common phrases such as the episode title and cast list.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The reception section is particularly thorough. Nice work.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   actively improved, no sign of edit warring or vandalism.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   rationales provided

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

   captions are suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Three minor copy edit suggestions remain. Otherwise an easy pass. Nice work here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

   Great, I think I've got everything. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References