Talk:Diddle Diddle Dumpling (Inside No. 9)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jonie148 (talk · contribs) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Going to start reviewing this soon. This will be my first GA Review, so I'll be looking to ask a Good article mentor to check over my work.--Jonie148 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Jonie148 (talk · contribs) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Review complete, and I feel like it's a case of putting the nomination "on hold" until the few specified points have been cleared up. Have now requested a second opinion from a Good Article mentor. --Jonie148 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for taking the time to offer this review. I appreciate how closely you've looked at the article! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, you've done a commendable job for the project in writing such an accessible and comprehensive article. Thanks for responding so quickly to my recommendations too, I've now marked all the criteria other than the images as met. Once that's done, I would still like to wait for a second opinion before I pass the page, but if this isn't forthcoming in the suggested timeline of a week for the GAN, I'll pass the page anyhow, as it's a definite pass in my opinion. Jonie148 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks a lot! No hurry from my perspective. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Following the second review provided by EggRoll97, I'm now entirely satisfied that the page meets the Good Article criteria, and I'm passing the page accordingly. Congratulations! --Jonie148 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
GA Criteria:
 * 1
 * 1.a ✅ Generally good, however the "Plot" and "Analysis" sections in particular need cleaning up in a few places in order to read clearly.
 * 1.b ✅ Conforms to MoS. Consider adding a see also section, as suggested in my general comments below.
 * 2
 * 2.a ✅
 * 2.b ✅ Referencing appears to be impeccable.
 * 2.c ✅
 * 2.d ✅ ~20% similarity rates on Copyvio Detector only indicate quotations in referenced text, so no issue here.
 * 3
 * 3.a ✅ Appropriate scope and lead section. Backed up by numerous references, as appropriate.
 * 3.b ✅ No unnecessary detail, to the extent that the "Plot" section borders on being too succinct.
 * 4
 * 4.a ✅ Maintains NPoV very well, with one important exception. See below.
 * 5
 * 5.a ✅ No content disputes in the page's history. Has received relatively few edits whatsoever since it was GA nominated, and almost all of the page's 99 total edits are by its creator and GA nominator.
 * 6
 * 6.a ✅ Images of Keeley Hawes and Matthew Baynton are CC2.0: some rights reserved, and the infobox image has a suitable non-free use rationale. As this rationale helpfully points out [|here], promotional images are deemed to be appropriate for use in infoboxes.
 * 6.b ✅ Could use further illustration. See below.
 * No DAB links ✅ DABlink checker confirms this.
 * No Dead links ✅ All links I can access are working. The Empire article and the Times article currently on the page are behind paywalls, which as far as I understand, isn't ideal, but it is permissible.
 * No missing cites ✅

General comments

 * This episode immediately reminds me of For sale: baby shoes, never worn, so that may be worth adding in as an intertext or in a "see also" section.
 * Yes, nice point. I'd be nervous about connecting the two without a source, though, as that would presumably constitute original research. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source on the talk page (Hugo Rifkind, The Times) also looks like it would be worthwhile to add into the article.
 * Yes, well spotted. Added. We now have a lot of reviews from The Times, but that's not a problem, I suppose! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider expanding the plot section slightly (Spring and Summer in particular), as at present it borders on being too brief, especially given the detail on display in other, more periphery, sections of the article.
 * My hands are a little tied, sadly; I'm currently at 460 words (excluding title and blockquote) when 400 is often presented as an upper limit (see WP:PLOTSUM). I think it just looks short because it's split into four. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't actually aware of this policy guideline, so the error is mine. Jonie148 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

1.a - Prose suggestions
To meet 1.a, I'd suggest the following changes are implemented:

Plot
 * jogging
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk)
 * 'find which feature'
 * Ok, but I've done that feature. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'notice, as he'
 * I don't want to make that causal claim! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'account, and'
 * Done. Good idea. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'grief, it is revealed that he never'
 * No; that would be a run-on sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'earlier. Like the shoes, his children were'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'not his own'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'but states that he does not remember what he has done when pressed further'
 * He wasn't really pressed, so I'm not sure this is accurate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Analysis Reception
 * 'or in a way that viewers'
 * I'm not sure that makes sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'both of these expectations'
 * I don't think the stuff about The Good Life is an expectation as such. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'with a contrast drawn between the chaotic music and the controlled cinematography'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'this Mise-en-scène reflects "David's'
 * Done (sort of). Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'or just outside the house'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'the feeling of'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove '(The Independent)' for referencing consistency within the sentence.
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Dan Owen, "Diddle Diddle Dumpling" was a "characteristically'
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Davies, of TheGuardian.com'
 * Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4 - Neutral Point of View
I should stress that the article generally meets NPoV standards completely. Nevertheless, and although I haven't read all the sources exhaustively, the sentence 'Compared to many other episodes of Inside No. 9, it is light on humour' in the lead seems to me to be undue weight, as only one source states this opinion (as far as I'm aware). If another source also states this opinion, add a corresponding reference in the "Analysis" section, and reword the sentence to something along the lines of 'Critics have suggested that compared to...'. If only one source states this, I don't think the sentence has a place in the article lead at all.
 * Fair point; done. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

6.b - Media relevant to the topic
The images and external video that are currently present supplement the article's prose appropriately. There is however a large empty white space next to the the 'Autumn' subsection of the plot section, that from my perspective, is practically begging to host an additional image. An image of Vivaldi, for instance, may well be appropriate here, given the relevance of his Four Seasons to the episode, and the numerous references to it throughout the article. The following image is copyright free;, although there are also alternate images that could be used.
 * I don't want to have the Vivaldi picture compete with the external video; perhaps we could have the video in plot, actors in reception, and Vivaldi in analysis? Or do you have another suggestion? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution to me, I'll let you have the final decision, as you've done all the work on the page. User:jonie148 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a Vivaldi image; I'm not sure that solves the whitespace issue, but it does add a little visual interest to the page. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks more visually appealing now. Regarding removing the white space, we could try something like this User:Jonie148/sandbox, with the "plot" and production "sections" reversed. This would separate the external video from the "spring" subsection though, so its not completely ideal, although a solution might be changing the description of that video to state which section its from. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Second Opinion
Hello everyone! Responding to the call for a second opinion. I've read over the article, it seems to meet the criteria. As for the issue over illustration, the criteria does say that it must be illustrated appropriately. Due to the fact that this is an episode of a TV show, it's unlikely that there needs to be that much illustration, and the illustration currently in the article seems to be appropriate. As for NPOV, it seems that the general article is passing. I believe, overall, the article meets GA criteria. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks for taking the time to have a look over the article and review! --Jonie148 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking through the article, and thanks  for such a conscientious review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)