Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)/archive1


 * 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015.

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)

 * Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Last Gasp" is the fourth episode of the first series of Inside No. 9, and is a free-standing, half-hour comedy about a terminally-ill little girl's birthday. Critics generally agreed that this was a weak episode of a strong series, but one journalist went so far as to describe it as "not funny ... not clever and ... so utterly, irredeemably, naffly silly that it ends up being incredibly irritating and nothing else". Personally, I thought it very funny, but without the depth/originality which characterised the other episodes of the series (it also stars a number of faces which will be familiar to fans of British television). This article (after Sardines (Inside No. 9) and A Quiet Night In) is the third Inside No. 9 page to be nominated here, and I would like to thank for a GA review, and  for a peer review. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose. I gave a thorough review of the article at PR and found very few issues. After another look this morning, I see that it's been improved further since. It still seems odd to me to have an unsourced plot section, but I'll defer to those with more knowledge about those types of sections. It's an engaging read that's worthy of FA. Nice job! Disclosure: I am a Wikicup participant. RO (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix
This article appears well-written on the whole. I'm not a fan of dark comedy, but that shouldn't interfere with my reviewing this article. I have read through the lead and the first two sections of the body, and have the following suggestions:

I hope these help! I will try to find time to review the rest of the article soon. Neelix (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is confusing to use the word "series" in two different senses, especially in a single sentence such as the first sentence in the lead. I would recommend that the phrase be reworded from "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology series" to "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology television programme", which is also more consistent with the main article and clarifies that we are talking about a television programme as opposed to a radio programme. The word "programme" might then replace "series" throughout the article wherever Inside No. 9 is being referred to as a whole.
 * This article should consistently employ the literary present tense. A guide to doing so may be found here: For example, "The episode was more comedic" should instead be "The episode is more comedic"; the episode is an ever-present entity rather than a past event.
 * There should be an "of" after "Jack Seale" in the lead.
 * Is it WishmasterUK or WishmakerUK?
 * The first paragraph of the "Production" section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section do not appear to me to be sufficiently specific to the subject of this article to justify their inclusion here; this information might better be located in the main Inside No. 9 article. It would be sufficient to say that Inside No. 9 is an anthology programme and that "Last Gasp" is therefore unrelated to the other episodes of the programme both in story and in casting.
 * I disagree- I think they provide good context for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I note that similar appear in my other two Inside No. 9 FAs, but I can modify it if you feel strongly or anyone else agrees. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that this is an issue that should have been identified during the previous two Inside No. 9 FAs. It seems ridiculous to me to have the same paragraph repeated in every article about an episode of this programme. I would certainly be glad to hear how other editors feel on the subject. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting with the words "In addition to Pemberton" is confusing because of its large number of commas. Semicolons separating entries in the list of cast members would help make this sentence more readable.
 * The words "normal" and "utterly freezing" should not be in quotation marks unless the sentences clarify who we are quoting. Otherwise, the quotation marks are likely to be interpreted as scare quotes.
 * "The episode was film on location" should read "The episode was filmed on location".
 * I would recommend cutting at least half the quotation by Kerr that concludes the "Production" section; we already have a lot of quotations in this section from people directly involved in making this episode, including another quotation from Kerr, and this quotation is unnecessarily long.
 * To be more explicit, I would recommend switching from "as she is a 'neutral' party" to "as he considers her to be a neutral party".
 * Partially done- I've used the phrase "a neutral" in quotes, as that's explicitly what Pemberton's character says. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Final breath" should not be in quotation marks and the two commas in this sentence are unnecessary.
 * I disagree- it's not actually his final breath, and the commas split off a subordinate clause. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In academic writing, quotation marks are not an appropriate manner of calling a phrase into question. If it isn't actually his finally breath, then we shouldn't be calling it that. In what sense is "and accompanying video footage" a subordinate clause? It appears simply to be the second item in a two-item list to me. Neelix (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the wording was problematic, but I have rephrased this to something hopefully less contentious. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any explanation in the episode as to the source of the loud bang? It might help to add the word "erroneously" after the second comma in this sentence.
 * I've added "erroneously", but there's no clear explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm back! Here are my suggestions for the rest of the article:

Thank you for inviting me to review this article! Please let me know if you would like any clarification on my comments above. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Pardoner's Tale" should be in quotation marks rather than italics. It would also be worth explaining what "The Pardoner's Tale" is. Does Dessau explain what connection there is with the episode?
 * I've switched to quote marks and clarified that the Tale is by Chaucer, but Dessau doesn't expand on his comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the context, I am concerned that readers will think that "The Pardoner's Tale" is a television episode. It might be helpful to clarify that it is instead a short story. Neelix (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the fact it's by Chaucer would be enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Without clicking the link, it is probable that many if not most readers will not know who Chaucer is, and will be as likely to think him a contemporary television director as a 14th-century writer. I would be glad for the entire world to know who Chaucer is, but many do not, especially those outside the UK or without a certain level of education. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. I've gone for "a story from writer Geoffrey Chaucer's collection The Canterbury Tales." Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The literary present tense should prevail in the critical responses.
 * Do you mean that I should treat the reviews as "ever present" in the way that I should consider the episode itself ever-present? This seems a little odd. Is there a guideline on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I mean, so long as the reviews are written as opposed to verbal. It is improper grammar not to do so. Wikipedia guidelines tend not to detail grammatical rules, but this one should be clear from reading the guide I link to above (along with other academic guides to the literary present that you might find through Google). Neelix (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've lost you. It's "improper grammar" to refer to "written as opposed to verbal" reviews in the past tense? This is not something I've come across before, and I wouldn't call myself a stranger to English. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that you are a stranger to English. This is a grammatical rule that applies only to tertiary literary commentary; it is unlikely that you would have come across it unless you have studied English literature at an undergraduate upper-year level or higher. Few people other than English scholars and encyclopedia writers write tertiary literary commentary, but that is exactly what this article is, and tertiary literary commentary requires the use of the literary present. Neelix (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could give me a source clarifying this point? And is literary commentary meant to be different from any other academic commentary in this regard? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (Pinging - do you have a view on this?) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, we don't have a part of the MOS requiring this. Personally, I would stick (and have stuck) to the past. A reviewer only writes something once, and opinions can change. Hence "XX opined Y, but recanted a year later; XX then opined Z". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks- that's one thing that struck me. In other articles (EG- A Quiet Night In, concerning Chater) I refer to different comments from different times. I don't think it's fair to imply that people still hold views that they once did; we simply don't have the sources to support that. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "S" should be capitalized in "series 1" because it is a proper noun.
 * The construction "For critic x" is overused; it appears seven times in the "Themes and analysis" section alone. This construction could easily be replaced with other constructions to avoid repetition. For example, "According to critic x", "Critic x argues that", etc.
 * PopMatters should be italicized.
 * I don't italicise websites. We don't have Wikipedia, YouTube or Facebook, so I don't think we should have PopMatters. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook are not online magazines; PopMatters is. The Wikipedia article about PopMatters consistently italicizes this name, while the names of the other websites are not italicized on their respective Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now that Manual of Style/Titles is actually fairly unambiguous on this point. What a disappointing guideline. I'd rather not make the change myself, but I won't revert you if you make it (as long as you change all mentions). Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be citations at the end of any sentence that includes a direct quotation, even if the next sentence is derived from the same source.
 * I'll add them when it's unclear, but I really don't think that's necessary. It's not the norm outside of WP, and I don't know of any guideline requiring it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can find the relevant guideline here; all sentences containing direct quotations should be immediately followed by citations. The guideline actually goes even further and makes this requirement of paraphrasing as well. Neelix (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, all that it says is that "[i]n-text attribution should be used" in those cases; it doesn't say that the attribution has to be at the end of the sentence. I do use in-text attribution, and it should be clear in each case where the quotes have come from. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline also says that this in-text attribution is "in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". In my previous FACs and GANs, reviewing editors have often mentioned this requirement for there to be citations directly following direct quotations; I am under the impression that this is the standard interpretation this guideline. Neelix (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that we're looking at the wrong section anyway. Citing sources: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." Meanwhile, "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." This disagreement is about in-line citations, not in-text attributions, and there doesn't seem to be a requirement that in-line citations are repeated unless material is particularly controversial. From WP:CITEFOOT: "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging - Would you mind weighing in on this point as well? The requirement to have a citation immediately follow all direct citations has been made upon me by so many reviewers in the past that I feel like it would be irresponsible of me to lightly dismiss them all as being incorrect. Neelix (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made the same point elsewhere, but checking WP:CITE (specifically WP:INTEXT) I see the sentence " An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." This is not how I remember the guideline, but it does appear to allow direct quotes to be referenced both after the sentence or at the end of the paragraph, as needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", but doesn't specify where. In short, I think either way works according to our policies and guidelines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To repeat: I'm happy to add extra citations when it's unclear where material has been taken from, but I think it's pretty clear everywhere in this article, and I've no desire to have practically every sentence with one or two footnotes unnecessarily. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my intrusion... but WP:MINREF may be what you guys were looking for. It clearly says a direct quote needs a citation. That's just an information page, not a guideline, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note: I can confirm that every quote has a citation. The disagreement was concerned with placement of the citations, and, again, I can't see anything on that page that challenges the citation placement in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the statement that celebrity culture is "a decidedly modern phenomenon" a statement by Upton? If so, this should be made explicit. If not, it should be removed.
 * It's not a direct quote- I'm not clear on what the problem is? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As this sentence is currently phrased, it is ambiguous as to whether it is Upton or it is us who is calling celebrity culture "a decidedly modern phenomenon". This opinion statement should be unambiguously attributed to Upton. For example, the phrase could be changed to "which Upton considers a modern phenomenon". Neelix (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've rephrased somewhat- it should be clearer that I'm referring to Upton's claims, now. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the issue persists. Do you dislike the solution I proposed? Neelix (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your wording would have led to a little too much repetition. I've restructured the paragraph: "David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the series. He listed three reasons that the episode did not seem like something produced by Pemberton and Shearsmith: its avoidance of the horrific; the fact that it does not star Shearsmith; and its direct focus on celebrity culture, which Upton considers a modern phenomenon. Instead, he suggested that it feels closer to a story from Charlie Brooker's anthology programme Black Mirror. The focus of "Last Gasp" on comedy to the exclusion of horror, for Upton, left it "stranded" when compared to the other episodes." How does that read? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thanks for taking the time to rework this. Neelix (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good to clarify that Black Mirror is also an anthology television programme.
 * I do not see a reason for "without the breath" to be in parentheses.
 * I would recommend rewording the sentence that ends with the phrase "as a critique of the celebrity memorabilia market". At present, it is difficult to determine which clause is intended to be connected to this one. Are they selling the balloon as a critique? Did she feel it may have happened as a critique?
 * It would be nice to be consistent with the other sentences and work Daily Express and Liverpool Echo into their sentences rather than sectioning the newspaper names off with parentheses. Perhaps "Paddy Shennan of the Liverpool Echo" or similar?
 * There is a lot of direct quotation from Owen in the "Themes and analysis" section and from Blackburn in the "Reception" section. It would be preferable to reduce these direct quotations significantly, either by paraphrasing or trimming most of them. The word "though" after the mention of Owen is unnecessary.
 * The quotation "The world's sick..." should include a citation to the episode with the number of minutes and seconds in.
 * "Said" is a verbal word and should be replaced with "writes" wherever the medium is textual.
 * There are far too many quotations in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. It would be best to paraphrase or trim most of this.
 * The caption of the Sophie Thompson image is a full sentence and should end with a period.
 * "the The Daily Telegraph" should simply read "The Daily Telegraph". There should also be a comma just before the quotation in this sentence.
 * I've fixed the "the the" issue, but there's a special place in Hell for those commas. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I forgot about this difference between Canadian and British English punctuation. Neelix (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to explain that The Star is a South African newspaper twice, nor to wikilink it twice.
 * I don't think the semicolon works after the word "hilarious".
 * I am not very familiar with viewership statistics, and it is likely that many of our readers aren't either. When the article reads "4.9% of the audience", what does that mean? 4.9% of the audience of what? Surely 100% of the audience of the episode viewed the episode. Also, the paragraph later reads "4.1% of the market". Is the audience different than the market?
 * I'm also not particularly familiar. I strongly assume it's 4.9% of the British audience at time of submission. "market" and "audience" are meant as the same thing- it's just to avoid repetition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Might you be able to add a footnote in the first instance with an explanation of what this kind of statistic means, with an accompanying citation? I will leave it up to you about whether or not to make the wording consistent with either "audience" or "market"; I can understand your desire to avoid repetition here, although I think it more important to avoid the potential confusion that these statistics are not comparable. Neelix (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase "To tie in with the episode" should be removed; it only conveys information that is obvious from the rest of the sentence.
 * It would be helpful to explain who Russell Brand is.
 * There are several empty fields in the infobox that could be filled out, such as Music and Editor.
 * It might be nice to include an image of Pemberton near the end of the article with a caption of his quotation about delivering something horrible. Just a personal preference; no pressure.
 * I'd love to, but I don't have one! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies again; I wrote "Pemberton" when I meant Shearsmith, who said the phrase about delivering something horrible. This is the image I was referring to, although I see that it's already in use in all of the other articles about episodes in the first season of Inside No. 9. This image of Pemberton has been released under a Creative Commons license, although I'm not sure that a photo of him acting as Pauline from The League of Gentlemen would be appropriate here. All the same, I'll add it to the Wikimedia Commons for use elsewhere. Neelix (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking the time to have a look through. I look forward to reading your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay- getting on this now. I may not finish this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've (hopefully) fixed everything apart from those comments I've replied to specifically. I'm a little embarrassed you managed to find so many silly mistakes. Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. I appreciate your willingness to engage with my comments. I have responded above. Neelix (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering your alterations, I have re-read the article, and have the following remaining suggestions and questions:

Great job on the improvements thus far! Please let me know if you have any questions about my remaining concerns. Neelix (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain concerned about the fact that an entire paragraph is repeated verbatim in this and every other article about an episode in this series. I continue to recommend its removal, or else the solicitation of more editors' input on the subject.
 * Is your objection just to the repetition, or do you think that the information isn't helpful? It seems to me that this is information which is relevant to each episode in the first series; if someone is interested only in the single episode rather than the series as a whole (as is quite reasonable in a series of this sort) this provides a good level of background. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think helpfulness is a sufficient criterion for determining whether or not content should be included in an article; there is plenty of potential content that a reader might find helpful that shouldn't be included in the article. For example, we might devote paragraphs to the careers of each of the actors who appear in the episode demonstrating the context of the episode in their broader filmographies. Such content would be helpful, but is arbitrarily chosen context, just as adding an entire paragraph on general information about the series is arbitrary. The vast majority of readers know how to click on the Inside No. 9 link to get more information about the series as a whole if they want it. Neelix (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "though" after the mention of Owen should still be removed.
 * Ok, sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would again recommend adding a footnote and citation to clarify what the phrase "x% of the audience" means.
 * I'll look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some explanation of where the data comes from, but I've not found an explanation of what is meant by the percentages in Broadcast. It seemed fairly intuitive to me, but clearly not for you. I'm still working on this... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it just a coincidence that both one of the characters and one of the actors are named Tamsin? I have never heard this name before.
 * I assume so; it's not uncommon. According to Tamsin (name), it's more common in some places than others. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this connection mentioned in any of the sources? It would be nice to make this connection explicit in the article if possible, but we can't if it's just our conjecture. Neelix (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just my conjecture from what I know about Inside No. 9, but I would guess that this a complete coincidence. Certainly not something any source has mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical "the same colour as the one Frankie blew up for Tamsin" could easily be avoided by simply inserting the word "purple" in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section (ie. "Frankie visits Tamsin in her bedroom, and blows up a purple balloon for her.").
 * Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks around the word "real" in the third paragraph of the "Plot" section are unnecessary.
 * I've trimmed the clarification- I think it's obvious why they would be selling the balloons to multiple buyers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see sufficient reason to italicize the word "without" in the third paragraph of the "Themes and analysis" section; the meaning of the sentences is clear without the added emphasis.
 * I've had a bit of trouble with that sentence- I think the new phrasing captures what Blackburn is saying. Basically, she thinks a story focusing on breath is silly, and a story focused on the balloon would be more sensible. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the "s" need be in square brackets in the phrase "riff[s] on the fact..."
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you do not implement the literary present through the "Reception" section, the sentence beginning "She felt that the episode..." should not alternate between the past and the present tenses.
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I really appreciate the time you're putting in to this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, my only two remaining concerns are 1) the first paragraph of the "Production" section and 2) the viewing figures footnote. Issue #1 could be addressed by either removing the paragraph or soliciting a third opinion. As for Issue #2, I like the footnote you have added and appreciate your willingness to continue looking for a source that can clarify what the phrase in question means. Neelix (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I can't find what the percentages mean and I'm not confident enough in my own interpretation (now that you've challenged it!) I've removed them. The numbers are still useful even without the percentages- I note that a lot of other television articles do the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great. If we can establish consensus on the first paragraph of the "Production" section via third-party input, I will have no remaining qualms. Neelix (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, criticised another of my articles last week (on "La Couchette", from the second series of Inside No. 9) on similar grounds- a too-general introductory paragraph. As such, I've removed the paragraph from this article, as you originally recommended. I've left the comment about a new cast each week- I think that serves as a valuable introduction to the second paragraph (and contextualises the guest star discussion in the reception section). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - The article looks great. Thanks for grappling so well with the issues I raised. I do see one last minor issue I didn't see before: the Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward quotation misspells Greig as "Grieg". Is this their mistake or ours? If ours, it should be corrected. If theirs, a [sic] should be added after the name. I hope the rest of the FAC goes well! Neelix (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good spot. It was their mistake, but, according to WP:MOSQUOTE, "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so I've fixed it. Thanks so much for the time you've put into this review- it's thoroughly appreciated. (I've "unindented" your support so it's not lost.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth
This is not really my type of article but it does not seem to have attracted enough reviewers, so I will have a go. In general the prose seems excellent and flows smoothly, but there a few rough edges:
 * "The episode is more comedic than others in the series" - I don't care for the word "comedic" but perhaps that is just my ignorance.
 * The OED defines it as "of, relating to, or characteristic of comedy"- it's basically a synonym of "comic", but less ambiguous. I'd prefer not to use "comic" as that suggests that the episode is frivolous and/or funny, and some critics would disagree with either of those assessments. Can you think of another word? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "... as a vehicle to work with new people, and had been keen to work with Greig for some time" - You use "to work with" twice in the same sentence.
 * Changed one "work" to "collaborate". Josh Milburn (talk)
 * "She added that the plot "exposes the venality and base instincts lurking behind" the fake grins which adorn the faces of the characters at the beginning of the episode." - I find the quotation marks in this sentence quite strange and think it would be better using only indirect speech.
 * Otherwise, its very good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of a more suitable word than "comedic". The changes you have made seem fine to me and I am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)/
 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Support a bit late to the party (sorry!) but I think the article looks great. The only comment I would make is to explain in the lead why critics viewed the episode so negatively, though I realize you may have avoided doing that because the various opinions are a bit difficult to summarize into one or two sentences. Anyway, nice work!  Ruby  2010/  2013  14:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note
I think we need a source review? Pls request WT:FAC if so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks Ian. To premept some concerns: Chortle is a website best known for the Chortle Awards, and is being cited only for an interview. BeyondTheJoke is the personal website of Bruce Dessau, a comedy critic and author. Dan's Media Digest is the blog of Dan Owen, a freelance journalist/critic who has written for a number of high-profile sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * No dead links, all sources are formatted consistently. No issues with close paraphrasing having selected a few random sources (Ref 2, 6, 14, 17, 29, 30, 32)
 * I'd add apostrophes to Ref 4's Inside 'Inside No. 9' to avoid confusion, given the show title's already italicised.
 * Ref 13 needs page number, otherwise link it to Highbeam. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look! I've added the HighBeam link as suggested (I originally used Nexis, but it's the same article). I didn't add the apostrophes- Inside Inside No. 9 is the name of the film I'm citing- see this press release, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.