Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Bill (Inside No. 9)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2018 [1].

The Bill (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In "The Bill", four men argue over who is going to pay a restaurant bill. Things go from eccentric to shocking when some knives are brought out from the kitchen, and then shocking to bizarre when a "corpse" lets out a yelp. And the final scene, in the eyes of some viewers if not the episode's writers, is incomprehensible. As a whole, "The Bill" is very witty, though a good bit of the humour relies on understanding the English north/south divide. I'm very pleased with how this article has come together, and I feel that it easily matches my other Inside No. 9 FAs: "Sardines" (Inside No. 9), "A Quiet Night In", "Last Gasp" (Inside No. 9), and "The Riddle of the Sphinx" (Inside No. 9). Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • "21 February 2017, being shown on BBC Two." — do you need the "being shown"?
  • "Callum Coates also appeared in the episode." — Who? Relevance? That he does not have a Wikipedia article makes it hard to figure out who he is or why this matters.
    • I'm keen to mention all the named guest stars in the lead. I've provided a little more context. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "and a third series was confirmed by the BBC in October 2015'" — how about "and in October a third series was confirmed by the BBC."
    • I've changed it to "and in October the BBC confirmed a third series" to avoid passive voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first of a run of five episodes" — what does this mean? If it's part of a season, of course it's part of a run, so how is this run different from the season's run?
    • The first episode of the series was a Christmas special; the remaining five started the following year and ran weekly as is more standard. I'm not sure I understand the worry, but maybe I'm being obtuse. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also on BBC Two" — is this needed, i.e., is there a reason to expect that all episodes of a season would not be aired by the same network?

Writing and filming

  • "[10][11][12][13][14]" — 3 or 4 sentences without a citation, and then this. Do any of these only support content in the previous 3–4 sentences, and if so, could you move any of them?
    • Yes; the previous sentences are drawn from these sources. I could possibly remove some of the citations if you feel there are too many, but I would rather keep these together. I could repeat them, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House of Games, meanwhile, was identified as sharing an "intensity" with the more violent moments of "The Bill"." — this feels more like criticism/ex post facto analysis than writing/filming.
    • It's from Shearsmith, which is why I've put it here. I've clarified that point. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of Shearsmith's favourite from the series" — should favourite be plural?
  • "the quip that" — "a quip that" might be better, since "the" seems to imply the reader familiarity with the episode.
  • "the episode was particularly claustrophobic" — the episode was afraid of confines spaces? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
    • claustrophobic can be used as an adjective meaning (to quote the OED) "confined, restricting; inducing claustrophobia". That's what I'm doing here. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not sure what this actually means. Was the episode filmed in a small space, making it seem confined? Was the "darkness" of the episode so enveloping as to create a palpable sense of claustrophobia?
        • I think the point is about the way that the characters feel trapped at the table and in the situation (plus, potentially, the locked door), but I'm moving beyond what's explicitly in the source. It's a little less literal than the claustrophobia of the other mentioned episodes, which were set mostly in a wardrobe and entirely in a sleeper carriage. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later in the working day, otherwise daylight would be visible on-screen." — suggest "later in the day when daylight would not be visible on-screen."
    • Tweaked, thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, is there a reason they couldn't just shoot at night?
        • Don't know. They aim to film over a relatively short period, so I suspect it's just a timing thing. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

  • "Callum Coates as Tim" — we now know who everyone else is (group/waitress), but not who Tim is.
  • "though the pair generally have a rule" — perhaps "though the pair say they generally have a rule"
  • "one of the highlights of series" — missing "the".
  • "For Pemberton, working with Watkins again was one of the highlights" — generally speaking, there's a fair amount of saying what people think in this article; technically we can't know what they think, we can only know what they say they think.
    • I understand the concern. I've fixed this instance; I'll have a more general look shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • "but Kevin claims to be the poorest. Archie, Malcolm, and Craig thrust cards at Anya until Kevin offers to pay" — so Kevin says he's too broke to pay and then offers to pay?
    • Yes- it's a shocking moment! He then counts out coins and tries to use a voucher. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the four men wrestle" — as in physically trying to grab the physical bill, or as in verbally wrestling?

Analysis

  • "takes that familiar scenario and pushes it to impressively baroque extremes" — says who? Why are there two citations for a direct quotation?
  • "are close" — how about "are similar"?
  • "Anya ... faces criticism for taking her characterisation too far" — do you mean the character, or the actress? If the latter, it should be explained (how did she take it too far?), and "faces" should be "faced".
    • The character. One of the other hustlers criticises her for an over-the-top accent. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "faces criticism from [name of character] for..." to make this clear? Also, in what way does this allow the writer's to have their cake and eat it to?
        • Clarified. They can have their cake and eat it because they can have silly characterisation and it be realistic - because it's the character's over-the-top character, not the writers'. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the work of the director Quentin Tarantino—including the 1992 film Reservoir Dogs—and to Roald Dahl's" — suggest adding the bolded "to"s.

Reception

  • "20th best episode (of 24)" — are the parentheses needed?
  • "for the title of the best episode ever." — suggest "for the distinction of the best Inside No. 9 episode ever." Title sounds a bit like you're talking about the name of the episode.
  • "four men sat at a table" — suggest "sitting".

Further thoughts

  • Is it usual to have some information (editor, executive producer) contained only in the infobox?
    They're common to the programme as a whole, and generally aren't mentioned too much in the sources. I'm not convinced that the information is all that essential to the article, but, given that there's an infobox parameter... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason Pemberton/Shearsmith aren't linked in the infobox?
  • "Watkins was attracted to Inside No. 9 by the chance to work with Pemberton and Shearsmith again." — said/thought
  • "Malcolm leaves the table only to return furious; Archie was lying." — does he discovery Archie was lying while away from the table? Or does he leave furious because Archie is lying, and then return furious for the same reason?
    • Complicated. He claims to have found out Archie is lying as he has made a phonecall, but, of course, this is all later revealed to be a charade. I've changed this to "A distressed Malcolm leaves the table only to return furious"; hopefully this makes clear the change in emotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, comments above. Nothing major, although as mentioned there's a tendency to state what people think, not what they say they think. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, J Milburn. A few responses are above. Want to do one final read-through before supporting. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, final thoughts are above ("Further thoughts"), in addition to the comments mentioned earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll get to the last few comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got to them, thanks again! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this J Milburn, looks good. Adding my support. Two minor things you might consider are 1) adding a semicolon and an explanation after "to have their cake and eat it", as I think your explanation above is clearer than in the article, and 2) adding that great screenshot as a fair-use image. It's a great image, as it gives a sense of what the characters look like, highlights the tension of the episode, and is just flat-out funny; in other words, it significantly adds to the commentary and a reader's understanding in a way that would justify its use. Totally up to you though. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I've done both things suggested. I can't add a second non-free image, but I can replace the episode poster with a publicity photo, so I've done that. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this sentence (Craig, the visiting southerner, is wealthier than the other three, and unfamiliar with some of their terminology), would “slang” be a more appropriate word choice rather than “terminology”.
    • I don't think it's slang as such; just dialect. I could use "colloquialisms"? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the “Writing and filming”, there is a part with five references. Would it better to stagger the references through the first part of the first paragraph or bundling them together to avoid potential comments on excessive citations?
    • You're not the first to mention this, so I've trimmed a little. There's now only three notes there. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith work hard to make roles attractive to accomplished actors, claiming that Glenister had hoped he would not like the script, looking for an excuse to turn down a week's work in his busy schedule.), please put the references in the correct order.
  • For this part (Watkins had previously starred in Shearsmith and Pemberton's Psychoville), I would include a short descriptive phrase in front of Psychoville.
    • Done. Not at all easy to classify, but I've gone with "black comedy television programme". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (they pair say that though they generally have a), I think you mean “the pair” instead of “they pair”.
  • For this part (they broke it "because [Watkins is] brilliant”), please put the references in the correct order.
  • For this part (a number of critics commented on his striking hairpiece.), please put the references in the correct order. There are also a lot of references here so I would consider bundling them together to avoid potential comments on excessive citations.
    • I've reordered them. I can't really bundle them as they're all used elsewhere; the fact that there are so many references is actually part of what justifies the claim I make, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several parts in the article where the references are not in the correct order (in numeric order). Please check throughout the entire article to fix this as I do not want to take up space by listing everything.
  • I would expand on the ALT text for the Quentin Tarantino and Roald Dahl images as simply using their names is not that particularly helpful.

Great work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I wonder if you might like to take another look? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. I looked through it again, and I do not see anything that requires further improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Argento Surfer[edit]

I reviewed this article for GA in April 2017, and all of my concerns were addressed at that time. Reviewing the changes since then, I find the article has only improved and I have no additional concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 10: How do you locate the source article from the Pressreader?
    • When I click the link, I see a range of possible articles to read, but the middle one (i.e., one click away) is the one in question. Where are you accessing this from? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in the UK. I can't make sense of the above info, from what I see. Where is this range of possible articles? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a Javascript thing, I think; the link takes me to a page with several articles (some current ones and the one I'm citing) and I can then click to go to the article. The URL is the same for the "landing page" and the actual article, though, so I don't think I can give a clearer link. Are other editors seeing what I'm seeing? @Aoba47: What are you seeing, if you have a second? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I click the link, I am sent to a landing page with several columns. The article cited can be found in the middle column (which can be opened further by clicking on it). I do not have any issues accessing it, though I can see how the layout can be confusing for someone clicking the link for the first time. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks; I think you and I are seeing the same thing. Brian, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're seeing! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: Does the DVD have an identfying number?
    • I have a barcode number of 5051561041235 or a catalogue number of BBCDVD4123. Would one of those suit? How would I cite it? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sometimes add the catalogue number tro the title, but this is an option - you don't need to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: Evening Standard; ref 25: London Evening Standard
  • Ref 23: What makes BeyondtheJoke.co.uk a high quality reliable so sourceurce?
    • It's the personal website of Bruce Dessau, who is a critic who has written for a range of broadsheets, has published a number of books on television comedy, and has a regular column in the London Evening Standard. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: Ditto Dan's Media Digest.
    • Its author, Dan Owen, is a freelance journalist/critic. He's not as well-known as Bruce Dessau, so I try to use the site relatively judiciously, but Owen has been commissioned by reliable sources to write about Inside No. 9 at least once. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: For clarity, I would give the publisher as "i (newspaper") rather than just "i" which might confuse
    • I understand the thought, but I'm worried about inconsistency with the way I cite other periodicals. I could call it The i, but I'm not sure that's strictly correct. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd personally prefer the slight inconsistency in favour of clarity. Readers who've never heard of the "i" newspaper may well wonder what "i2 means, and the link is hardly visible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: Publisher should be The Guardian per ref 8
    • Changed both to Theguardian.com; some of the stuff on their website isn't published in the paper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: needs a page no.
    • I agree. Frustratingly, Nexis doesn't provide page numbers for the Liverpool Echo. I can remove the quote if preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, the sources look in good order and of ÷e appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator note: J Milburn, this seems to have stalled in the last few weeks. I've added it to the urgents list but I'm afraid it will have to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more support. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: A lot has happened at once, but I now count support from Usernameunique, Aoba47, Argento Surfer, and SchroCat. There's been a source review from Brianboulton. No one else has commented, and no one has opposed. I don't think we're in too bad a place, but I of course leave the decision about how/if/when to close the review up to you! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see an image review but, having checked things myself, I think the licensing is satisfactory and we can safely close this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nicely put together and meets the FA criteria. Two very minor points for you to address: FNs 8 and 30 point to the Guardian website, but you need to make the capitals consistent; FNs 28, 34 and 37 are all for Daily Telegraph: this should be The Daily Telegraph. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done both. Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Bill_(Inside_No._9)/archive1&oldid=848286023"