Jump to content

Talk:To Catch a Copper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Lightburst talk 01:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Bilorv (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 43 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

— Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that I missed it! Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I found the hook confusing in that the end of the quote is truncated. I will propose a serious tweak which still keeps the hook at 197 characters.
  • ALT0a: ... that To Catch a Copper hoped to show "an enjoyable journey of officers solving cases", but discovered "a misconduct process that was unfit for purpose in addressing seriously concerning behaviour"?
The article is new enough and long enough. The hook checks out, the article is free from plagiarism and neutral. The hooks is cited, interesting and in the article. The article uses the correct inline citations. Two QPQs have been completed. Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:To Catch a Copper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 22:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same as last time, every comment is open to discussion, I won't insist on anything unless not making the change would make the article fail GACR.

Lead
  • "into officers misconduct" unless this is BrEng, I think that should be "officer" singular
  • "Across three episodes and four years of filming, the programme follows incidents themed around mental health, race and sex crimes." This feels a bit awkward; incidents aren't really themed. I notice you mention the four years of filming later, so you could maybe remove that and then revise to something like "The series has three episodes, which are themed around mental health, race and sex crimes." (You could be really cute and combine it with the next sentence, but that might get a little bulky)
  • "in the style of Line of Duty" I've seen Line of Duty, but not everyone has. I would suggest a bit of context for it, as currently the sentence reads like LoD is also a non-fiction programme
  • "External criticisms" - I might swap the last two sentences to make it clearer that these criticisms are directed at the police.
Series overview

You're under the 700-word limit so this isn't a hard demand, but I think there are places where the synopsis could be tightened.

  • "One woman is arrested under the grounds of disturbing the peace on the Clifton Suspension Bridge. The woman was at risk of jumping from the bridge." Could be trimmed to "One woman is arrested under the grounds of disturbing the peace after threatening to jump from the Clifton Suspension Bridge."
    • She doesn't threaten to jump (at least not on camera) – the police report that her behaviour is an attempt to jump. She allegedly attempts to climb a buttress. Still I've gone with "One woman is arrested under the grounds of disturbing the peace after police assess that she is attempting to jump from the Clifton Suspension Bridge." — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "searched as she screams" - is her screaming significant? She's pinned, so we know she's likely resistant/unhappy with the situation to begin with. (Put another way - would the officers' behavior have been less repellant if the woman had not been screaming?)
    • The local Federation chair says "This is the worst misconduct I think I've ever seen. You know, she's clearly in crisis, this young lady." My personal interpretation is that a person may be restrained even when compliant but her screams ("they're raping me") indicate crisis and atypical behaviour, and police should be responding first to the acute mental health dangers before attempting to search her. Nonetheless I'm trying to stick rigidly to what secondary sources say rather than using the episodes directly as the primary source (due to contentiousness of the subject). The Guardian mentions that there is screaming. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The level of force used in this case is questioned" by who? The filmmakers? Other cops?
  • "who says "I want to die"." - it's not clear why this is relevant, since their misconduct relates to her urinating on herself and cursing at her
    • I meant it to indicate that she's in a crisis, so I've just said "during a crisis". I suppose it's there so the reader can understand why police were summoned to the scene (someone leaving hospital even unwisely is not usually a police matter). — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "during a crisis" is more clear overall
  • "urinating over herself" not sure if BrEng, but usually that would be "urinating herself", or maybe "urinating on herself"
    • I think it's different to slang like "wet yourself" or "piss yourself"; "urinating herself" would mean to me "it's her that's urinating". I've said "urinating on herself". — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about the difficulty with continually engaging with" This sentence is a bit tied up in itself with the withs
  • "a man who is "stopped and searched", assaulted, arrested and strip searched" you've got searched twice in one sentence; I know he was searched twice but is there a way to write around this?
  • There's quite a lot of space given to the sex crimes episode - three paragraphs - but only one each for the others.
    • I've merged the PCSO paragraph with the Lovell paragraph, as both involve (in part) alleged workplace misconduct. We're on the low side on words so I'm reluctant to remove facts about episode 3; I've added a couple of details relating to body cameras and brain bleed symptoms to the others, and it's roughly a 5:4 ratio between episodes 1/2 combined and episode 3. There are some objective reasons for this such as the previous media coverage of Cocking and the weight given to these incidents in secondary sources about To Catch a Copper specifically (which include a person being fired and a criminal trial). — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair, I think combining the paragraphs helps
  • I'm not entirely convinced the female PCSO's reasons for joining the force need mentioning in the synopsis, but I'm willing to hear you out
    • She gets a fair bit of coverage (and a prominent photo) in The Times. The documentary isn't just a list of misconduct allegations, but shows interest in this officer's background and provenance on policing. She's 18 at time of recording, I think, and has just joined. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, fair.
Background
  • Normally background would be first. Is there a reason it's after the overview?
    • From a quick spotcheck of good articles, I think some form of series overview (whether it's "Plot" or "Gameplay" or "Series overview") comes first in most articles. With the changes below I think it's now fair to call this a "Production" section instead as everything is tied in to the series. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think it was more that it was being called "Background" that threw me
  • "Footage was collected by" passive voice
  • "as a documentary in the style of Line of Duty, a BBC police procedural" I would specifically state that LoD deals with police misconduct/corruption to make the topical connection obvious
  • This whole section feels a bit disorganized. Individually the facts are salient but the structure doesn't really connect them in a way that tells a story.
  • Para 2 doesn't clearly connect the three other series you mention to Copper. In the cited Guardian source, Francis-Roy discusses these series in a way that might help connect things. I might start with something like, "The filmmakers sought to produce a different style of documentary from popular police documentary series such as Police Custody, The Met, and The Force, which they felt focused on presenting "investigations with police heroes" as entertainment." Then you can get into Sacha complaining about other series, then move into "The filmmakers were influenced instead...".
  • I'm not entirely sure Campbell's statement on its own merits inclusion in a paragraph about the filmmaker's style / inspiration. I think if you're going to include it at all, it would be best in a paragraph about other documentaries being more positive toward the police/having that symbiotic relationship, even Pettitt in the past with his older credits. The paragraph in the Guardian that opens "Increasingly, police shows on British screens..." is relevant here, as it discusses how more police-friendly docuseries come about. I might move this new paragraph up to be Para 2, so then you're starting with a description of the status quo before you talk about how Copper deliberately went against it, and the difficulties they had with that.
  • I might move the stuff about overall police misconduct from para 3 to para 1, so you're going from broad to narrow, topically.
    • I've reshuffled things, bearing all these points in mind. See if there's any more cohesion now. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, overall it reads much smoother. As a heads up, you're now mentioning and linking the US version of 24 Hours before the UK version, so it reads slightly out of order.

Thanks for the comments so far! Let me know any issues you feel are still outstanding. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments left above, but like, minor nitpicks. Everything not commented is good. Last bit now:
  • This is just me being annoying, but I'm not sure 3 subsections are needed; this section isn't that long on its own
  • "It described Operation Bluestone a new approach" - should be "as a new" I think, and also, what's Operation Bluestone?
    • That sentence is supposed to be the description. I've reworded as They described implementing a new approach to sexual offence investigations, Operation Bluestone. The 'new approach' consists of interviewing suspects, consulting police databases, allowing charities to provide support, and attempting to use non-criminal-charge measures (such as driving disqualifications) on repeat sexual abusers. But that's a bit too tangential I think. — Bilorv (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence starting "The Police Federation concluded" needs to be split. The first bit up to "unsupported" appears to come from the 400-officer survey, but the next bit is a quote from Iain Prideaux.
  • ""fairness and balance" is needed" - feels incomplete. "in media portrayals of police" perhaps, or something similar?
    • Split into two sentences, mentioned the vice-chair and added "when scrutinising policing" (the original is But whilst putting policing under a microscope there should always be ample fairness and balance). — Bilorv (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth is a Lammy Group. I googled for about 15 minutes and I can't figure out what it is. To do with The Lammy Review?
  • The reviews section is sufficient for GA, but I think you could probably expand it more if you're thinking of taking this to FA. The one that catches my eye is Seale from the Guardian - did he have more commentary after episodes 2 and 3?

There we go, sorry for making you wait on the last bit. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: thanks for the review! It's good to get another pair of eyes on this one. I think I've resolved everything above. — Bilorv (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I think we're ready to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Catch_a_Copper&oldid=1219640561"