Jump to content

Talk:A Quiet Night In

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleA Quiet Night In is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2016.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 31, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
November 9, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
May 27, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
October 27, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "A Quiet Night In", the second episode of British dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was almost entirely free of dialogue?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A Quiet Night In/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It first aired on 12 February 2014 on BBC Two and BBC Two HD." -> I'm not sure we aught to consider these separate channels, especially given that the HD link is merely a redirect to BBC Two. Just "on BBC Two" would suffice.
  • The Shearsmith caption seems a little run-on. It'd be the same length but flow a little more directly as "Reece Shearsmith (pictured in 2003) co-wrote "A Quiet Night In" and starred as a moustachioed burglar".
  • Whether or not you rearrange the caption, "burgular" should be burglar.
  • There's some WP:LQ inconsistency, with terminal punctuation both inside and outside quotes in different places; I tend to prefer the latter but either works if it's consistently used.
    • I only put the punctuation inside the quote when it's a full sentence- I am pretty sure this is consistent with the MOS, but I appreciate how awkward the guidelines are... What do you feel is problematic? J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, didn't realise that was the case. I found it a little odd to see both ways used, even if it is technically correct, but I'm fussy so don't consider that a real issue.
  • "The writers had considered having a ten-minute section in an episode,[4] or even the whole episode,[5] without dialogue." -> there's something about the end of the sentence lacking a reference that irks me for some reason. I think if you turn it on its end, something like "The writers had considered having omitting dialogue for a ten-minute section in an episode,[4] or even the whole episode.[5]", then you avoid this.
  • "Piano Concerto No. 2" is in plain text in the plot summary but in italics in the sound file caption. I assume italics is the correct way about it.
  • Plot section is really long. 909 words is long even for a feature film summary; WP:TVPLOT recommends around 300-500. Even without losing any of the plot threads, a lot could be shaved off this length if the descriptions were trimmed and longer phrases condensed down a little (for example, "Ray returns to the painting, cutting the canvas from the frame, before making a fake version of the painting from kitchen roll" could be "Ray cuts the painting from its frame, replacing it with kitchen roll" for about half the length, etc).
  • Never been keen on cast sections that just list roles and actors; consider just listing cast in brackets in the plot summary when their roles are mentioned (and in regards to the point above, you could get away with ignoring the wordcount the names would add).
  • The Times review is quoted a little heavily; it might be a good idea to mine out a few smaller nuggets and paraphrase the rest; if you're very attached to it, consider taking the quote into a quotebox to one side if space allows.
  • Link the Observer and the Guardian.
  • There's a lot of repetition of "describe", especially in the reception section but also towards the end of the production section. Switch it up a little with a few synonyms.
  • I'd consider dropping the Lawson image to the same width as the Shearsmith one, but that's an aesthetic concern.
  • That's all I can see for the time being; I'll give it another look when the plot's cut down though. Sounds like an interesting show, to be honest, might have to find it on iPlayer. GRAPPLE X 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a start on the fixes. I do recommend taking a look; the first episode was one of the best things I've seen on TV in a while. I was personally less sure of this one, but I did enjoy it. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, some of the "described"s are gone and the plot section has been trimmed; it needs a bit more though. Thanks for bearing with me... J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can take a pass over it as well if you'd like, sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can find a few redundancies to trim easier than someone used to looking it. GRAPPLE X 03:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do! I'm down to about 575 now, but I'm not sure what else to trim! J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it works as it is, to be honest; there's a bit of leeway since there's more description needed with no dialogue—75 words over is a lot closer than 400. I'm happy enough with it at the minute, going to pass this. Well done! GRAPPLE X 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for your efforts! I've started work on the next episode (different in feel again... writing the main article will be difficult!) so hopefully that'll be at GAC soon. I'd also be interested in throwing some of them towards FAC, but I may wait until I've seen whether the DVD release has any bonus features first! J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward sentence

[edit]

"At 18 pages of stage directions, the script every joke in the episode, an exercise in planning atypical for Shearsmith and Pemberton." Er... what? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should be "the script contained every joke...". Fixed, thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

Was reviewing the article before writing it up for the Signpost. I think you might want to tweak the plot a bit more, as there's two issues: 1. Kim appears out of nowhere. Checking older revisions, it appears she's the cook or housekeeper; if you just called her by her profession it would frankly be a lot clearer. Secondly, the Reception section discusses the dog's death; however, while the dog's mentioned, its death isn't actually included in the plot at the moment. It would help prepare the reader for later to finish that plot thread.

This is, on the whole, an excellent article. Plot summaries are hard, especially given it's a silent episode. A little more tweaking, and I think it'd be perfect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Sorry I missed this- thanks for the comment. The article currently says "and sits down to soup brought by his housekeeper, Kim (Veheary)", so there is some introduction- I think this is sufficient. As for the dog, we currently have "Eddie accidentally throws the terrier into the window, so Ray stuffs the dog into an umbrella stand." It's not completely clear that the dog is killed, but I suppose it's pretty strongly implied; I could rephrase to "ram" instead of "stuff" to emphasise the violence? (He places it in, then stuffs it down with an umbrella- not graphic, but enough to make you grit your teeth...) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Kim point seems fixed, as for the second point, might want to say "stuffs the dog into an umbrella stand, ramming it in with an umbrella" Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to that, but I don't like the repetition of "umbrella" (and I'd have to check to confirm it was an umbrella); as this is now an FA, I wouldn't want it to deteriorate. If you want to make the edit, I won't revert you, but I'll have a muse over how best the phrase it and make a fix once I've worked something out. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand...

[edit]

http://web.archive.org/web/20160505195928/http://www.colstonhall.org/shows/inside-no-9/

Hatnote

[edit]

I do not wish to engage in edit warring, but what looked like a legitimate edit was being deleted without clear explanation. Porridge was one of the best known British TV series of the 1970s. A Night In is particularly remembered since the scriptwriters, Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, set themselves the difficult task of writing an episode set almost entirely in a prison cell with only 2 characters, although they were helped by strong performances by the 2 actors, Ronnie Barker, the leading British TV comedy actor of the 1970s in what many regard as his best role, and Richard Beckinsale, a promising young actor whose career was tragically cut short by his death at only 31. When I first read this article I thought that the Porride episode was called "A Quiet Night In", as might a few people, and it easily could have been called this. I don't think it matters if someone put a lot of effort into this article, FAs can still sometimes be improved, we don't have ownership of articles. If the hatnote is not MOS-compliant feel free to make it so. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the hatnote is not MOS-compliant feel free to make it so." No, that's not how this works. If you contribute to an article, especially a featured article, it's your job to make sure that your contribution is a good one. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, you shouldn't contribute, and you certainly shouldn't edit-war to keep your addition in an article. I think your contribution is a bad one for the simple reason that the articles do not have the same title, and the difference is not merely an apostrophe or a changed spelling- they are simply different titles, whether or not you mistakenly believed that they had the same title. If you had a reliable source suggesting that the Porridge episode is sometimes called "A Quiet Night In" (mistakenly or not), this would perhaps be different. I also have to question your decision to add a hatnote to this article but not the other until much later. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article A Night In you will see that twice in the article it mentions that the characters use the phrase "a quiet night in", so it's hardly surprising that some people might assume that this is the title of the episode. In what way is the hatnote not MOS-compliant? PatGallacher (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWNER. PatGallacher (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • When one goes straight to "WP:OWN", one is usually in the wrong. "Quiet" is a very clear disambiguator (WP:NAMB), and unless you have references that "A Night In" is sometimes known as "A Quiet Night In", then there should not be a hatnote here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has explained in what way this is not MOS-compliant. PatGallacher (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of speech marks? Despite the fact you are a lone voice on this talk page, you have now added the hatnote to the page six times, (repeatedly) pooh-poohed the BRD cycle and made insinuations about my conduct ("WP:OWNER") and Chris's perceived lack of "common sense". Now you're choosing to ignore the issue at stake (all the while forcing the hatnote back into the article) to instead pick fault with my claims about the MOS. You're really rubbing me up the wrong way. What's the grand plan, here? You keep adding it back until I decide I don't want to remove it any more? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of speech marks? You sound rather unsure. In what way are they misused? And what would be correct use? PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already been told. The fact that you refuse to listen (nowhere in WP:NAMB does it say a parenthetical disambiguator is necessary; it simply says "In many cases it is preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." The use of natural disambiguation is further supported by WP:NATURALDIS Point 1). Either give some references that "A Night In" is sometimes referred to as "A Quiet Night In", or drop the stick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Quiet Night In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Quiet Night In. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Quiet_Night_In&oldid=1263412149"