Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Junipero/archive2

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 [1].

San Junipero[edit]

Nominator(s): — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror is an infamously dark and depressing anthology series, but as it moved to Netflix, Charlie Brooker marked the show's new era by writing what is, in my opinion, the most beautiful and uplifting love story in the history of television. A previous FAC for "San Junipero" failed only due to lack of comments. I hope the article does the episode justice. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments

@Aoba47: I've addressed all the comments you made at the previous FAC other than the following:

  • I will have to preface my comments by saying that I have not seen this episode (or any episodes from this series). I find the “Plot” section to be confusing, particularly the jump from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. There is a large time jump between 1987 to 2002, and that left me confused. Are Yorkie and Kelly in 2002 played by the same actresses from 1987 version? Are they treated as being the same age? I am just lost with the whole timeline. I would imagine that writing a plot summary for a show with twists must difficult.
    • Yes, they're played by the same actors. They appear as the same age. It's like they're in a different level of a video game, but as the viewer doesn't yet know that they're in a simulated reality, they're not supposed to understand exactly what is happening yet. Can you think of any specific bits which could be rewritten to make this bit of the plot clearer? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure how to make it clearer without making the prose awkward so I believe that it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (Kelly follows and propositions Yorkie, who declines, saying she is engaged.). What sort of “proposition” was Kelly offering Yorkie? A sexual one? A romantic one? I would clarify this in the prose.
    • A sexual one. Kelly says "Wanna go to bed with me?" What rewording do you recommend? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would make it clear in the rose that is a sexual proposition. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence ( After Yorkie leaves, Kelly follows and confesses that she is dying), does Kelly say how she is dying in the scene?
    • Nope, we don't know. Kelly says "They tell me three months. It's spread basically everywhere. They said three months before six months ago. So, you know, what do they know?" — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention multiple songs being featured in the episode in the body of the article, but only one song is in the infobox.
    • I've added the others mentioned in prose, but it's not an exhaustive list as the infobox documentation says "Television episodes often include numerous songs; only include the most notable". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable, and thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the need for the rainbow flag image in the article.
    • Well, the Analysis section has a paragraph about Kelly and Yorkie's sexualities. I've replaced it with a bi flag, with a bisexual lighting–related caption, as this is perhaps a little more pertinent. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems more appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Goodman and Atad both opined that the story would leave viewers in tears,), the references need to be placed in numerical order. I would check the article for this.
    • That's not policy, and I consciously chose to place them in the opposite order so the first ref is the first reviewer mentioned, and the second is about the second. See, for instance, WP:REFORDER for previous consensus about this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't it make more sense to just switch the reviewers' names around as I do not see any clear reason for them to be placed in that order? However, I will leave this up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will look through the article again by the end of the week, but please ping me if I do not add additional comments by the end of Saturday. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. It is a far less commercially/critically acclaimed piece of television (i.e. it was terrible and a flop), but any help would be appreciated. Good luck with this round, and I hope that this receives more comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the last couple of points. I'll take a look at your FAC soon. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received and the episode's plot twist was widely praised), I am not sure if the word “very” is necessary.
    • I think it's more accurate with the "very". As the Reception says, "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised, even by reviewers who disliked the episode." I think I found one reviewer who didn't like their acting versus dozens who praised it. To say "well-received" is a huge understatement. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (along with the uplifting tone of the episode and its visual style.), I would say (along with the episode’s uplifting tone and visual style) just to be a little more concise.
  • For this part (but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people.), I would add the citation to make it clear what is supporting this information, particularly since two citations are used in the following sentence.
  • I am somewhat confused by this sentence (Brooker was involved in the choice of arcade games for the set). The “Plot” section does not reference arcade games (unless I am reading over it by accident). Were they involved in the episode, or were they brought it on set for the actors during filming for some reason? It kind of comes out of nowhere.
    • I've rephrased slightly. They're part of the 1987 and 2002 nightclubs, and we see Yorkie playing on one in 1987 and Kelly playing on one in 2002. These bits are very brief so they're not included the plot (which has a very tight word limit), and reviewers don't seem to have really mentioned them, so this is really the only place they can be mentioned. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wikilink “plot twist” in the “Critical reception” section, though you use the words “twist” and “plot twist” in previous sections. I would move the wikilink up to the first time you mention it in the body of the article.
  • I would avoid beginning the sentence (But Wallenstein criticised Mbatha-Raw and Davis for an inability to "pack the emotional punch that this crowd-pleaser needs to truly shine”.) with “But” as it reads slightly awkwardly to me as a transition.

Great work on the article. Once these relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. It definitely inspires me to work on another television episode article, as it has been a while since I have done so. I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these last points. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: are there any more comments I need to address? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I thought that I already supported this. I support this for promotion. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gonnym[edit]

  • Whilst series one and two of Black Mirror were shown on Channel 4 in the UK, Netflix commissioned the series for 12 episodes (split into two series of six episodes) in September 2015,[1] and in March 2016, Netflix outbid Channel 4 for the rights to distributing series three with a bid of $40 million - I don't understand this. If Netflix commissioned the season 3 episodes in 15, why did it have to outbid Channel 4 in 16? I'm assuming Netflix didn't plan in 2015 on paying for a season to be shown on Channel 4 at the time.
    • Sorry about this—turns out I made some mistakes. The $40 million bid was in 15, not 16; and it's distribution in the UK under discussion. It is a confusing situation, but here's what happened: in 2015, Netflix commission the show for 12 eps. Now C4 could still get the right to distribute series 3 in the UK first, perhaps with it being released on Netflix later (not a rare deal—for instance, it's what happened with The End of the F***ing World). They bid on this and Netflix outbid them, the result being announced in 2016. Anyway, that's too much detail (and a bit of OR), particularly for a page about an episode and not the series/show itself. I've done a bit of rewording but let me know if you think there are still problems with it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alongside "Nosedive", "San Junipero" was first shown in 2016 ahead of its Netflix release at the Toronto International Film Festival. - You should mention that Nosedive is another episode from the season, as without it, it's not different than the many other TV shows/films shown in that festival.
  • Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series." - I have a problem with the word "Authored" as it isn't used in television and it's also not used by you in the article lead or infobox. "Written" should be good enough here. I've also have a problem with how the sentence is constructed. I don't know why but it just seems like it's cut short. Actually the whole paragraph seems off to me. See next point.
  • "San Junipero" was the first episode written for series three.[6] Authored by Charlie Brooker, it was a "conscious decision to change the series".[7] The show previously focused on technology's negative effects;[8] this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible.[7] Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists.[9] He later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people. Having repeatedly thought of writing an episode set in the past,[6]Brooker wrote "San Junipero" as a period episode.[10] - These short rapid sentences make the flow seem off to me. As an example change Brooker initially envisioned an episode in which technology is used to investigate whether an afterlife exists, but later became inspired by nostalgia therapy for older people..
    • I've used your example and linked the first two sentences. Let me know if you think it's any better. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • this episode served as proof that uplifting Black Mirror episodes are possible - (maybe if the previous point is fixed this won't be an issue) - this seems like a response to someone saying it isn't possible, but all you have here is this statement which seems like we're reading half a conversation.
    • It's intended as a response to "The show previously focused on technology's negative effects". The full context of the quote is: "[Brooker:] Every show that I've done starts with a character in a trap, who stays in the trap. San Junipero was a nice trap. It proved to me that you can do an uplifting episode of Black Mirror." ([2]) How would you like this reworded? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooker told The Daily Beast that in the rough treatment - I know you linked to the Daily Beast in the box on the right, but this is the first time in running text it's mentioned and could probably be linked here also. I didn't even notice the box while reading.
  • Director Owen Harris described the 1980s - could probably link to the director as that is the first mention of him since the lead.
  • Gugu Mbatha-Raw, who plays Kelly, had heard of the show but not seen it when she received the script, though she did watch "Be Right Back" before the shoot - similar to a previous comment. You should probably mention that Be Right Back is another episode from the series, as the context is missing.
    • It's mentioned in the paragraph below as "the series two episode "Be Right Back"" so I've just moved that description to this paragraph. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a bus journey from Oxford Circus to Brixton - I'd link these two. I'm not from the UK and I had no idea where these two are so no idea how long that bus journey was and I actually did search these here to find out, linking would have been easier and faster.
  • Davis first saw the show with a friend - You should probably write her full name as you did with Gugu Mbatha-Raw and as its the first time she's mentioned since the plot. I had to re-read the previous section to see if I missed who Davis was.
  • Elfring described it as the only episode with "warmth to it, and Jeffery called it the "most upbeat and positive. Handlen believed that the previous episodes' sad tone heightens the effectiveness of "San Junipero",[41] and Stolworthy thought that it was consequently the show's most ambitious episode.[42] Saraiya notes that technology is portrayed as good in "San Junipero", a rarity in the show.[43] Sims noted that the episode follows the season's darkest episode, "Shut Up and Dance".[44]" - who are Elfring, Jeffery, Handlen, Stolworthy, Saraiya and Sims? (probably critics/reviewers, but you should give them their full name and website/newspapper)
  • Its Emmy Award wins were considered by some to mark a cultural shift in relation to portrayal of lesbianism - should link to the Emmy Award ceremony.
  • They are not the focus of exploration in the episode, but its plot raises many philosophical questions,[45] including the nature of consciousness and experience[37][45] and the consequences of digitally simulated existence. - I don't understand who "They" are. If "They" are the philosophical questions, then please consider revising as it is not clear.
    • Yep that's what was intended—I've essentially just moved the first clause to the end of the sentence. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers have questioned what San Junipero would mean to believers in an afterlife - is the "San Junipero" here the episode title or a place in the episode? If it's the title then its missing the correct style.
  • I stopped at Critical reception as this took longer than I expected, but I'll add notes about the table.

Thanks so much for the review! I've responded to each of your points. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another table related issue - I don't see a reason why reference 87 should be using rowspan="2", as Category, Recipients and Result are all in one row, and it makes verifying more confusing compared to the other references.
    • I don't understand the issue here. Ref #87 has two links, one to Category/Recipients and one to Result, and each link applies to both rows. If I removed rowspan="2" then I would just have to cite ref #87 in both rows. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know each link applies for both rows as you wrote For the award nominations, see Beachum, Christ; Dixon, Marcus James [...] For the award winner, see Montgomery, Daniel [...] which implies that one ref is for the first row and the other ref is for the second row. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact I don't believe I was the one who wrote that but anyway, I've changed it to "For the list of nominees" and "For the list of winners". Is that any better? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is better worded now, but I still don't think there really is a real reason for that. Just stick the nomination ref to the one that was only nominated and the winner video the other, or if the video does does both, you could just use that (but I'd say cite the nomination list for the non-winner one, as it's much reader-friendlier to skim a written list than to see the video). Also, I just checked [3] and the website doesn't actually say who the winner is, the video does [4] so I'm not sure if Template:Cite web is the correct ref template, or maybe Template:Cite AV media is a better choice here, as it will allow adding the specific timestamp of when they actually say who the winner is, although I've myself not cited something like this in the past, so not sure how to handle this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • There was a real reason: when we use {{nom}}, it means "nominated and didn't win". Otherwise we use {{won}} (or {{pending}}). So the award which didn't win still needs the source announcing the winners. But I've changed the winners source to a text source, and as it also mentions the other nominees, I've removed the nom source which is now redundant. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure you need to find a source that proves a negative. You said it was nominated and sourced it as such. This isn't the article for the award which you need to also say who was the winner. Anyways, glad you found a source that makes this issue moot altogether. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: are there any more comments I need to address? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good (except for my personal dislike of a missing cast section :) ). I have a few more comments, but for me the article condition looks ready. One major caveat though, I haven't verified any of the references, so take that into account.

  • The episode has a substantially more hopeful tone than other Black Mirror stories; it was popular with critics, and received numerous awards. - this is then repeated in the 3rd lead paragraph, so should probably be removed from the first paragraph as there is no real point to summarize the lead.
  • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California.[16] Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22] Harris said that, during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture".[16] Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23]. - this reads a bit akward as a "he->her->he->her" and could probably change to something like
    • Harris has said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California,[16] and noted that during the shooting of the argument on the beach between Kelly and Yorkie in their wedding dresses, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean and it turned into this really beautiful scene", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture". Mbatha-Raw said that almost every scene was shot at night or dusk, particularly the exterior scenes.[22]
  • Mbatha-Raw recalled an ostrich walking onto the beach during one filming session.[23] - Could also probably remove this. I'm not sure what it added really, seems a bit trivia (unless there is a significance to it, which isn't explained).
  • The episode contains hints leading up to the reveal of the twist. A factor considered during the editing process was how overt the hints should be. Annabel Jones says that "there may be visual signifiers that you think were going to work and then didn't, so you need more exposition in the edit". Adjustments were also made using sound design techniques such as sound effects.[11] - seems this paragraph is not related to either "Cast" nor "filming".
    • It doesn't really fit anywhere – I've given the paragraph its own section, "Editing". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Marketing" and "Future" sections should change places as chronology the marketing should come first (personal note, not sure I'd put them in production, but rather in their own sections).
    • Swapped. After a bit of thinking, I've given both of them second-level headings, because they're not exactly part of the making of the episode. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Junipero" is a highly optimistic,[29] emotionally rooted[30] love story and a work of science fiction. - maybe revise so it doesn't sound like this claim came from us (which reads a bit like original research) or is a universal claim, but from the people you are citing so something like "Reviewers have called "San Junipero" a highly optimistic..."
    • Yeah, these things aren't particularly controversial but done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode provides an example of bisexual lighting, as colours from the bisexual pride flag are used to represent the sexualities of Kelly and Yorkie. - This is in the flag box and is missing a reference (even if its in the article, the box doesn't have it)
  • Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were universally praised,[b] even by reviewers who disliked the episode. - are the people quoted later the ones that disliked the episode? It wasn't clear to me (without reading references) who liked their performances but disliked the episode.
    • This is referring to the next paragraph, which begins: "Mbatha-Raw and Davis also received praise in negative reviews." I've removed the latter half of the sentence, which hopefully solves the confusion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I think I've addressed all of these points. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Good job! --Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this matters to the FAC, but while you are already at it, you should probably add a Template:Short description (Wikipedia:Short description) --Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to the FA criteria. If a short description is needed on Wikipedia (not just Wikidata), I would want descriptions to be standardised with {{Infobox television episode}}, so I don't think adding on a page-by-page basis is helpful. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

I'll take a pass at this; expect comments by tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend archiving your sources: https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle
  • "Some critics believed it to be one of the best television episodes of 2016" → "Some critics considered it one of the best television episodes of 2016"
  • "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were very well-received"—"very" is virtually never needed; just let the verb speak for itself
    I defended this above (Aoba47's comments) but if multiple people are bringing this up independently then I'm happy to remove it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the "Future" section should be below the "Critical reception" section, as that's how I've seen most articles (film, BLPs, and video games, specifically do it)
  • "It has been very favourably received by critics"—see my point above
  • Most of the quotations in the "Critical reception" can be paraphrased. Quotes should only be kept when a critic says something so unique, particular, or just so well-written and fully descriptive of the episode that paraphrasing doesn't do it justice.
    I'll do another round of copyediting for this in a second. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related notes, the introductory statements in each paragraph (i.e. "The episode's plot twist, revealing that San Junipero is a simulated reality, was highly commended by critics") are generalized statements that should have direct refs as they can be challenged. A refbundle might be useful here
    They're really just topic sentences. A refbundle would just be a list of citations in the paragraph. The statements that I thought would not be covered sufficiently be refs in the paragraph are the three sentences with notes at the end. If you want I can go digging up a wider range of sources with all of them (plot twist was commended; visual style was well-received; praise of new genre), but I think these are less controversial statements. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is a really clean article. Nice work JOEBRO64 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Quietly watching this to help out since I worked on the article) - Archive run done. --Masem (t) 20:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I think they've all been addressed. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: just a ping in case you hadn't seen this. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, was meaning to come back to this. Looks like you've addressed all my concerns (and if you didn't you explained why), so I'll lend my support. Great work ! JOEBRO64 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Black Mirror - San Junipero.jpg: Bunch of "N/A" fields in the rationale that should probably be filled in. Speaking of, I presume that the screenshot is of some key scene that is discussed in text?
  • File:Bi flag.svg: License and use seem OK to me, doubly so given that the use of the flag is explicitly discussed.
Lead screenshot has no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd—the screenshot should have the alt text "Two women dressed in 1980s-style clothing." This shows up for me both in the edit screen and in the Altviewer tool. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I generally search the page source for "ALT=". The NFCC#8 rationale in the first image may merit some expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a fair bit. (It's quite long now but tbh there's still more I could say about it if necessary.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to a recent edit adding archive links, the citations have become extremely bulky due to their each having three (!) dates—of publication, retrieval and archival. Since WP:CITEWEB suggests retrieval dates are only "required if the publication date is unknown", I believe they can definitely be removed.—indopug (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with the sources at the moment. Accessdates aren't prohibited when the publication date is known, and as {{cite web}}'s documentation alludes to, they're important if the source can change. Many of these sources could change—the most obvious example is the Episode rankings, where many of the sources updated to include the series 4 episodes once they had been released. (This will happen again with later series and any of the sources which didn't update could update at any time.) More generally, a lot of sources are online news articles for which corrections could be issued. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - We're getting there, but this needs pushing over the hill or it will have to be archived soon. Since this is the second nomination and some good commentary has been generated, I'll wait a bit. MoS errors are present ("Annabel Jones says that") and the citation issue brought up by Indopug above needs discussion and resolution. I don't see any reason for the citations to be exploded with three different dates each. WP:V should be the driving factor in such decisions, along with readability. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: thanks for keeping this open because I would give up on the FA process if this had been archived without warning for a second time. I'm afraid I don't understand the issue with "Annabel Jones says that". I'm also unsure which FA criterion is broken by including accessdates (note that the criteria don't even require citation templates). Can I ask what specifically is necessary for "pushing over the hill", as I'm not clear on the standard in this area? Would one more review be enough? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Past tense is typically used when quoting what someone said in the past about a thing. The use of present tense there reads quite awkwardly. Having the article styled well for readability and accessibility is part of both MoS compliance and criterion 1a, so if someone brings up an issue about the citations being ponderous, that's actionable and at the very least requires discussion and consensus. --Laser brain (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Yes of course; my mistake. I've gone through the article and fixed the tenses. And are we reading the same thing for 1a—"well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? This quite clearly doesn't refer to non-prose portions (e.g. citations). I also can't see any part of the MOS which prohibits accessdates when archivedates are used. It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the issue—I explained the necessity of the accessdates above. I don't know what more I can do. I notice you didn't answer the last question(s), but as I'm quite busy at the moment, it would be useful for me to know how many more reviews the nomination needs before consensus is achieved. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 00:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general metric historically is that we look for at least three declarations of support where it's evident that the reviewer has examined the article against WIAFA, before we'll even start considering promotion. If there are other outstanding issues where consensus hasn't been reached on actionable comments (on sources, images, style, etc.) that will also hold up promotion. You have an image review but you will also need a full source review for formatting and reliability. --Laser brain (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I notice you've posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Image/source check requests—thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "is the fourth episode in series three of British science fiction anthology series Black Mirror. Written by series creator and showrunner Charlie Brooker and directed by Owen Harris, it premiered on Netflix on 21 October 2016, with the rest of series three." - can we avoid so many series' in such close proximity?
    • We can. I've removed the "series creator" phrase, which doesn't seem essential. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances were well-received and the episode's plot twist was widely praised" - too wordy; suggest changing it to "Mbatha-Raw's and Davis's performances and the episode's plot twist were well-received".
  • " Brooker first heard it while running, and knew it would be perfect for the final scene" - I feel like the part after and is presented as if it were a fact, when it's merely Brooker's opinion.
  • "Mbatha-Raw read the entirety of the script" - can't it simply be "the entire script"?
  • "The episode's director was Owen Harris" - I would suggest using present form here (or the usual is directed by); he is still the director of the episode even if it has been completed. For example, you don't say a film starred X, but stars.
  • "According to Mbatha-Raw, the episode was shot in 14 days across a three-week period,[21] with a week shooting in London and another week in Cape Town, South Africa" - week...week...week
    • I've changed this to "According to Mbatha-Raw, the episode was filmed in 14 days across a three-week period, with shooting split equally between London and Cape Town, South Africa." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She described the shoot as "very rapid", saying they "didn't really have much time to rehearse"" - this can easily be paraphrased.
    • I've cut this to "Mbatha-Raw said there was little time to rehearse and no read-through." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harris said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to.." - an incredibly long sentence. Suggest splitting.
    • Yes, good idea. I've divided it in two and shortened a bit: "Harris said that Cape Town "has these really rich, beautiful settings" that allowed him to craft a "slightly heightened" version of California. He noted that whilst shooting Kelly and Yorkie's argument on the beach, an "incredible mist rolled in from the ocean", which caused difficulties but led to "some really lovely texture"." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It has been favourably received by critics, receiving.." - receive...receive
  • "Instead of by quality, Proma Khosla of Mashable ranked the episodes by tone, concluding that "San Junipero" is the second-least pessimistic episode of the show." As a fan of Black Mirror, I would really like to know (and as would the readers, perhaps) which is the lest pessimistic episode; my guess would be "Hang the DJ"?
  • "But in an interview with NME, Brooker mentioned" - a strange use of but in the beginning of a sentence (maybe it's just me). Should a however suit better here?
    • I don't think it's necessary at all—I've changed to simply "In an interview ..." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good that it's not been archived. FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your points; let me know if you spot any more areas to improve upon. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, in which case I can Support this nomination. I have made a change in the lead in this edit, which you are free to revert in case you disagree. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree that that edit is an improvement, but I've made a tiny follow-up change here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations and/or publishers for newspapers
    • I've added publishers consistently. As for locations, I can't see any that were included—perhaps you saw "New York", which I've changed to "New York Media, LLC" for clarity. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23: the source has the title in all caps - are you sure it is intended to be "Us" and not "US"?
    • Well, that's also the date it was released internationally. I can't find conclusive proof either way, but I'm willing to believe that "US" was what was intended, so I've changed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See commentary at WP:ROTTEN regarding statistical accuracy
    • Which part specifically? It says 200 reviews is enough and 10 is not enough, which tells us... exactly nothing here. As the essay suggests, the prose mentions the number of reviews and the relevant aggregate data, so readers know it's based on 18 reviews. I'm of the opinion that 18 is enough so unless there's consensus you can point me to that prohibits this, I don't see what exactly needs to be changed. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 18 is still a relatively low number of reviews, to the point that accuracy seems questionable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about 21 (three more have been added since I last checked)? I note that List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, after a very large amount of detailed discussion, count films which have received at least 20 reviews (or a Critics Consensus). Hence there is precedent for 20 being sufficient for statistical purposes. I would expect a lower threshold for television episodes since they receive a lot fewer reviews, but "San Junipero" passes the 20 mark anyway. And again, no-one is being misled here as the article says "based on 21 reviews". — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether leading "The" is included in relevant newspaper names
    • Do you have any specific mistakes to point out? They use "The" when it is part of the name (e.g. "The New York Times") and don't use "The" when it isn't ("Los Angeles Times"). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Washington Post in FN53 but Washington Post in FN18. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Junkee a high-quality reliable source? WhatCulture? Mashable? Flickering Myth?
    • Junkee: It's being used to cite a critics' opinion so I suppose all that matters is that the author is a professional and the website is respected for its pop culture content. Junkee has an Alexa rank of 1,150 in Australia, so it's very popular, and it's a news website with a heavy focus on pop culture.
    • WhatCulture: The author is Christian Bone, a professional critic who has also worked for Starburst and We Got This Covered. However, I see now that WhatCulture accepts submissions from anyone (though there is of course an editorial team) so I've erred on the side of caution and removed it.
    • Mashable: The site's Alexa rank of 813 makes it one of the most well-known journalism sites in the world, and it is most well-known for publishing content about entertainment and culture, and articles are written by professional critics.
    • Flickering Myth: The site has an editorial board and Liam Hoofe is a professional critic (who has worked at HeyUGuys, for instance). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popularity or Alexa rank doesn't equate to reliability. What are the specific credentials of the authors of the Junkee and Mashable pieces? What are the editorial policies of these sites? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not trying to say it does; I'm trying to say that these aren't fringe sites, but mainstream critical opinion. Caitlin Welsh (Junkee author) has written for The Guardian, Cosmopolitan, TheVine etc. Proma Khosla's main credential is being a professional critic for Mashable, but she has a public LinkedIn profile here. Both sites have an editorial board who review content that their paid employees (i.e. Welsh and Khosla) have been assigned to write. I don't really know what more there is to say. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure citing a student newspaper is appropriate here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to look this up before and couldn't find a consistent position on whether student newspapers are reliable sources for this type of content. I've removed it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your comments. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: any more comments? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: can I ask what remains to be done on this nomination? Since your comments, there has been another prose review and a source review (I understand from their userpage that Nikkimaria does not support on sources, but I have addressed all the points that were brought up). By my count, that makes four prose reviews, an image review and a source review, all with no outstanding issues. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:00, 26 October 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/San_Junipero/archive2&oldid=866378397"