Talk:Demon 79

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demon 79/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I reviewed the matches of 9% or more found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues; matches were titles, attributed quotes, or examples acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "to prevent the end of the world" and "complains about the smell of". No issues found during spot checks.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reception section seems to be a fair represtentation of sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some recent edits reverted, but no evidence of edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Appropriate FUR for the poster. White Bear Black Mirror.svg is a simple geometric shape. Other images are CC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	images are relevant, captions are fine.
	7. Overall assessment.

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Use of the Mashable source seems OK per the comments about the site at WP:RSP.
• Film Music Reporter has been mentioned a few times at RSN. I don;t think there's a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Film_Music_Reporter_-_Reliability but it would probably be better to use a replacement, if possible.
  • It's not a source I liked using and all I want here is the composer's name and release date. I think a primary source like Apple Music should suffice as a replacement. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• The plot summary is, if my count is right, 418 words, so slightly longer than MOS:TVPLOT's "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words."
  • I usually exclude the parentheticals for actors' names, here 13 words, but I've done another copyedit anyway and it's 400 on the dot including parentheticals. Let me know if I've taken out anything important or made anything unclear. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• "makes sexual comments towards Nida" - I haven't seen the episode for a while, but aren't they more double-entendre/innuendo/sugestive rather than directly sexual?
  • I struggled to describe this. There's "I'm large... for my height" and "If you fancy writing down your number, I won't mind". Also implication of poor hygiene. I guess the key is that Nida finds him repulsive. I've managed to remove a few words by combining it with the fantasy of hurting Vicky and leaving the description at "unsettling". Hopefully the paragraph also flows better now. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Nida joins Gaap" - again, might be my faulty recollection, but doesn't the episode end with Nida agreeing to join, rather than actually joining?
  • It ends with them holding hands and walking into a bright white light. I'm happy with "agrees to join" instead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Spot check on "During this time, Brooker took a break from Black Mirror and worked on more comedic projects" - no issues, but is the "more" ambiguous? (i.e. "additional comedic projects" vs. "projects that were more comedic")
  • Now "projects that were more comedic". — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Optional: "each instalment can be watched in any order" feels a bit redundant; you could just introduce the show being an anthology in a few words added to the first sentence of Production. but fine if you want to keep as-is.
  • The point is to explain "anthology" without needing readers to follow the link (MOS:NOFORCELINK) and to clarify that stories don't continue over a series (American Horror Story-style). — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Spot check on "Ali is the only co-writer of the sixth series; she created the series Ms. Marvel"; source has "creator Charlie Brooker and Ms. Marvel's Bisha K. Ali" so deosn't explicitly confirm that Ali created the series Ms. Marvel.
  • Added a non-"Demon 79"-related source that says Ali was creator, which I'm loathe to do but every "Demon 79" source seems to mention "Bisha K. Ali" and "Ms. Marvel" without saying she created it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Spot check on "The episode's supernatural elements are designed to evoke 1970s horror movies" - no issues.
• Spot check on "starred in Nathan Barley (2005), which was co-created by Charlie Brooker" - not quite supported by the cited source's "Nathan Barley’s Nicholas Burns in a mini-Charlie Brooker reunion"
  • Same deal as Ms. Marvel: now added an unrelated Guardian source (which assumes you'll know Brooker best as a Guardian columnist!). — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I did, as it happens, first note him as a Guardian columnist. Reading Screen Burn was a source of joy for me for years; but it's quite possible I would have unwittingly first come across him when he was working at the CeX in Rathbone Place, a place I recall as quite an intimidating shopping experience. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Very interesting! I've got one of the compilation books, Dawn of the Dumb, but wasn't reading Screen Burn at the time. I knew his Guardian boss, Alan Rusbridger, as my college principal. One column inspired a Black Mirror episode. — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, BennyOnTheLoose! I believe I've given a response to each point that needs one. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check on "Vasan said that they had natural chemistry due to a shared background in theatre" - no issues
• Optional: "In contrast to most Black Mirror instalments, however, is the episode's happy ending" could be something like "The episode's happy ending is in contrast to most Black Mirror instalments"
  • Gone with "The episode's happy ending contrasts with most Black Mirror instalments." — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Optional: "Demon 79" is set during the 1979 United Kingdom general election, which led to Conservative Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister. - the setting had this effect? Maybe something like ""Demon 79" is set during the 1979 United Kingdom general election. The election led to Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister."?
  • "that" makes it unambiguous I think: "Demon 79" is set during the 1979 United Kingdom general election that led to Conservative Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency in whether characters are referred to by first name or surname: Len/Fisher (first/last); Nida/Tim/Keith but Smart (first v last). You'll know better than I do whether this is an issue.
  • MOS:SURNAME says "For fictional entities, use common names". Smart is usually referred to by surname in sources and by the characters. Len Fisher now uses "Len" consistently as Vulture and Den of Geek do. (Typically which use is common depends on whether they're a main character and whether they're a villain: "Smart" makes him sound most austere.) — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Heritage reviewed that" and "Radio Times's James Hibbs praised that it "brilliantly weaves in social commentary throughout"" feel like unusual formulations in British English, but perhaps I'm behind the times.
• Optional: could vary the first few sentences in the 3rd para of Reception, which currently start Heritage reviewed that/Webster believed that/Rosenstock said the/Babiak praised the/Radio Times's James Hibbs praised that
  • It's hard to vary wording here from "X said Y" but I've changed "reviewed that" to "wrote that" and changed a couple of the sentence structures. Also tried to cut down on repetition of "praise". — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• From today, the song is linked at Bright Eyes (song)
  • Link changed. — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I've added another round of responses—let me know if there's anything more! — Bilorv (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing claims about the ending supposedly clarifying whether Gaap was real

There are two claims in this article that the ending makes it clear Gaap was real and not imagined. I disagree. That is only one interpretation of the ending. My OR is that the show skillfully leaves the question open for the viewer to interpret as they will. There is a cited source on one of the two claims, but even the cited source hedges, saying the ending "appears" to resolve the question in favor of "real". So, I'm going to remove the two claims, which this article has no business asserting. Lavaship (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, Lavaship. I agree that this is only one interpretation, but believe it is still worth mentioning. From the source, as you allude to: However, the conclusion of the episode appears to make things certain once and for all, that Gaap truly is a demon and, without Nida's help, the apocalypse is nigh. This is bad writing by the author, using the confused phrase "appears to make things certain". Nonetheless I think it is reasonable to say that one can interpret the ending as demonstrating Nida's correctness. I've rephrased the part in the body as: the apparently apocalyptic ending could vindicate Nida. I think your rewording in the lead is fair.

On the changes to the plot, MOS:TVPLOT gives a 400 word limit that the previous version (discounting actors' names) was only 9 words under. I notice you also changed some British English to American English—take a look at MOS:ENGVAR. If you think there are plot points that cannot currently be understood by readers or information in other sections that doesn't make sense due to plot omissions, let me know and we can see what has to be cut to make room. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

> the apparently apocalyptic ending

My point wasn't that the show leaves open the question of whether the nukes hit. They do hit; all the characters see it, so there's no need to hedge that with "apparently". What the show leaves open is the question of whether Gaap and Nida's supernatural quest are real, or whether instead Nida is delusional, and the nukes are the conclusion of a mundane series of events, alluded to in the TV show about a military crisis. I'll rephrase accordingly.

> a 400 word limit

Oof. I'll take another look, thanks; there are a couple of proper nouns that don't add to the reader's understanding, like the name of the pub. Lavaship (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I agree with your recent edit but I've made some tweaks. — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)