Wikipedia:Peer review/Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)/archive1

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)
This peer review discussion has been closed. The critical consensus seems to be that "Last Gasp" is a not-so-great episode of a very impressive programme. I have my eye on FAC, and I would appreciate any advice which help me tip it over the line. All comments very much welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver

 * Lead
 * The three links in the first sentence create what's maybe not a sea of blue, but it looks a little odd to me. Maybe drop the link to anthology series.
 * I'm not a big fan of having so many parentheticals, but maybe you prefer this to working the actors names in to prose.
 * Production
 * She was brilliant- she had maturity beyond her years
 * Check for dash spacing.
 * Changed. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pemberton noted that he and Shearsmith had been "dying" to work with Greig
 * I'd prefer to avoid that one-word quote for a paraphrase.
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * was inspired by a person Pemberton had seen on children's programme
 * Unless there is a good reason that eludes me now, I'd swap out "person" for "someone".
 * Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There might be too much reliance on direct quotes in this section.
 * Plot
 * Why are there no citations in this section?
 * As is fairly standard in articles of this sort, the plot is just my retelling of the episode. Any citation would simply be to the episode itself, which isn't particularly useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Themes and analysis
 * In South African newspaper The Star
 * Seems odd to leave out the definite article here, but maybe that convention is acceptable.
 * I prefer the current phrasing- the addition of the "the" would change the tone slightly, even if (in this case) it wouldn't change the meaning significantly. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the most cynical of series 1.
 * I think linking "cynical" might be a WP:OVERLINK.
 * Given that I'm identifying cynicism as a theme, I think the link is useful- if you feel strongly (or anyone else says the same), I will happily remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the first series.
 * Maybe this is a BrEng convention that I am not aware of, but in the US we say "the first season", and the "series" applies to all episodes in toto.
 * Yeah, that's British English- we don't really use "season" unless we're referring to US programmes. "Series" can be used to refer to the whole programme ("show" is something of an Americanism, by the way), but it generally refers to what you would call a season. See this page, for example. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * The acting in the episode was praised by Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward
 * This seems backwards; I'd say: "Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward praised the episode's acting".
 * I've had a fiddle, but I'll have to adjust the rest of the sentence, too, so nothing worked out. I'll have a think... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On the day it was shown, "Last Gasp" was selected as comedy "pick of the day" in the Daily Express,[23] but, the following day, an extremely critical review of the episode by Virginia Blackburn was published in the newspaper.
 * Do you feel this needs to be changed? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Viewing figures
 * I assume this is the preferred term to "ratings", which we would use in the US.
 * I've never come across "ratings" used in that way in British English- "viewing figures" does seem to be preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Charity auction
 * The money from the auction was to be donated to Give It Up,
 * I think we can we omit "to be" here, as I assume this did in fact happen?
 * Funnily enough, I don't have a source saying that it did happen. I've rephrased, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a tight article that reads quite well overall. There might be too much reliance on direct quotes, particularly in the Themes and analysis and Reception sections, but most of the quoted stuff is pretty creative and maybe defies paraphrasing. Nice work! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * Thanks so much for your review- I will get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with some of the smaller issues; I will massage the prose a little to trim down the quotes. You're certainly not the first person to mention this to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)