Talk:Metalhead (Black Mirror)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I never got into this show myself, but it looks like a lot of effort has been put into this episode article which makes me happy! I'll have a good look through and then get back to you soon with some feedback. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've got a few areas that I would like to see worked on before I promote the article to GA: Make your way through those things and let me know if you have any issues or questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial to mention that Brooker is the series' creator in the lead.
 * Agreed; done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting, I think, for the episode's music to be mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. But more on that soon.
 * The plot summary is a little long, it should preferably be under 400 words per MOS:TVPLOT.
 * I'm of the belief that Black Mirror articles generally need IAR for plot length because as standalone stories set in different universes, they're closer to movies. With "Metalhead" in particular, I find it requires more words to describe action-heavy material and the plot is almost entirely action. However, it's now done to 475 words (discluding actors' names). I think any shorter would lose detail about the episode which the reader needs, both for understanding the plot and in case they read later analysis/reception sections of the article. Though if you can see any particular bits which you think should be removed or rewritten, I'll take a look at them. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems fine to me now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a little more structure in the production section. The obvious change for me would be to give the first paragraph a subheading "Development" or "Background" or something like that, and then rearrange the rest of the main production section into "Writing" and "Filming" sections. You could probably include the music info in the filming section, or something like that. See what you can come up with.
 * Yeah, I've attempted but failed to do this before, as in this particular episode there's a lot of intermingling of different stages—it's such a production-heavy episode that where we would normally describe the process of the plot being written, here there's a lot of "the director helped conceive of what the dogs would look like". I've split it into "Development" (anything to do with writing or designing scenes) and "Filming" (the actual process of getting the footage). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty good, I know how tricky this can get when there isn't clear divides like we can get with film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the music info itself, I feel like the article isn't representing what actually happened particularly well. From having a quick read of the linked sources and a brief look around, it appears that the episode does not have an original film score but instead features cues lifted directly from the soundtrack of The Shining, which in turn were taken from works composed by Krzysztof Penderecki. I think you can do a much better job of explaining that then you currently are. The fact that music has been lifted directly from another film for tonal reasons is what I think is interesting enough to be included in the lead (see above point).
 * I'm not sure this is correct, or more importantly what the sources say. Looking at things again (including credits of the episode), it looks like Penderecki was not involved directly in the show itself, but the episode uses compositions of his. I've not seen The Shining, which features original music and non-Penderecki compositions, but I'm not seeing enough evidence for us to say that the music was lifted directly from it. I've searched before and I did another search again but the only references I can find which mention the soundtrack are the SaluteMag and EW ones already used in the article. Hence there's not enough weight to give the music a mention in the lead, or even a whole paragraph. The relevant parts of production now read: "With Al Green as music editor, the soundtrack features compositions by Krzysztof Penderecki. It was inspired partially by 1980 horror film The Shining." This is the most I think we can say. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So looking at those two sources, the SaluteMag one just says "the soundtrack is predominantly comprised of compositions by award-winning conductor/composer Krzysztof Penderecki", and the EW one says "with a soundtrack lifting orchestral cues from The Shining". I then went and checked The Shining (film) and can see that the soundtrack for that film includes some preexisting music composed by Penderecki. So I'm pretty sure what those two sources are saying is the episode used orchestral cues from the soundtrack of the The Shining, and most of those were pre-existing pieces composed by Penderecki. Do you disagree with this interpretation? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bit more nuance. If we look at TuneFind, there are five pieces listed. Other than "Golden Brown" (used for the car radio), there are four Penderecki pieces, of which afaik only two appeared in The Shining. Now TuneFind is generally accurate though not always exhaustive, but it's certainly not a reliable source and neither are my inferences. I think we can safely say that the episode uses music composed by Penderecki and music which is featured in The Shining, so I've changed the prose to say: "With Al Green as music editor, the soundtrack features compositions by Krzysztof Penderecki and includes some pieces which were used in 1980 horror film The Shining." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, I think that wording is ideal. And yeah, don't worry about putting it in the lead, when I suggested that I was under the impression that the connection to The Shining was greater than it actually may be. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While the TV MOS doesn't go into details on best practice for marketing, I think it would be good to follow the spirit of WP:FILMMARKETING and try present commentary on the marketing rather than just the marketing efforts itself. Basically, all movies and TV shows have trailers and posters, but what is unique and noteworthy for this article is the response that the trailers and posters for this episode received.
 * On the contrary, it's rare for TV shows to have posters for each episode, and I think it's rare for Netflix shows (where episodes are released in a series rather than individually) to have episode trailers. But point taken, and I've added the sentence "The trailer led one commentator to speculate that the episode could be the show's "most disturbing episode yet", with another saying the trailer was "enigmatic"." — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Make sure that in-line citations are coming after punctuation and aren't just in the middle of a clause.
 * I don't think this is policy (see WP:REFPUNCT) and it's done for an important reason. I assume you're referring to "genre fiction and low concept." Here it's important to separate which sources are talking about genre fiction and which mention low concept, and adding a comma would be weird for the flow of the sentence. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, it looks like I have misread REFPUNCT and been applying it incorrectly for years! No worries on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the analysis and reception sections, I have two general copy-edit concerns. First, the use of quotes is borderline too much here, I think a bit more paraphrasing could help. Secondly, there is some interesting use of tense in these sections. Please make sure that you aren't randomly changing tense within sentences, and that you talk about past events in past tense. For instance, "Reviewers have widely commented on the episode's 41-minute running time" is good, as it talks about what the reviewers have said. However, in the next sentence we have "Sims praises the storyline as "taut"...". This is not ideal as we cannot guarantee that he is currently praising it as "taut" at every instance that someone may be reading this article. It is better to just refer to his position at the time of writing (which we know for certain) and say "Sims praised the storyline as "taut"..." instead.
 * I've consistently switched to past tense. (This is not the first time I've made this error—I think what confuses me is that the fiction is referred to in perpetual present tense.) I'll copyedit for quotes in a bit. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've copyedited the Analysis and Reception, making some quotes shorter and rewriting others as prose. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you make sure that all web citations include archives? This is important in case a web page is taken down in the future and a reader tries to get to it to see where we are getting our information from.
 * Done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I've started addressing them and I'll let you know when I'm done. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed everything. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I've responded above regarding the music issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like my concerns have been addressed, and I think the article is structured and written better now. Coverage and media files are all great, so overall I say good job! I have made a few episode articles in my time and I feel like they are a bit under-valued around here, so seeing a great one like this is always really awesome to see. Keep up the good work! Pass - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)