Talk:Loch Henry

Loch Henry has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Loch Henry is part of the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed
April 21, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Major Spoilers in the Introductory Paragraphs of this Article

Hi guys - there are major plot spoilers in the introductory paragraphs of this article. These sorts of details are normally only revealed in the "plot" and "analysis" sections of articles like this. I think these spoilers should therefore be removed entirely from the introductory paragraphs. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOILERS - once a work has aired to the general public, we do not hide spoilers. Masem (t) 21:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Masem has indicated, spoilers are not censored on Wikipedia, or limited to only some sections of an article. Streamberry and the analysis of Pia's death are integral to the episode and the lead would not be a complete summary without mention of it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The spoilers themselves have only aired to the people who have watched the episode though. Furthermore, it seems perfectly feasible to give an adequate summary of the plot and its themes - by way of introduction to the episode - without mentioning such major plot details. To introduce an episode by revealing details that would also negatively affect someone's first time viewing of that episode seems like a very shoddy way of introducing it. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) (I've copy-pasted my above response here as this response applies to both comments - I'm not sure how to respond to both at once though.) 31.94.21.55 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just the comment once suffices: everyone can see it. The point of the lead is not to "introduce the episode". It is to summarise the episode and contextualise it. Read WP:LEAD. You can't summarise World War II without saying how it ends. You can't summarise this episode without explaining the plot twist and how that leads to the Streamberry themes.

I see Igordebraga has reverted with the comment still,no need for a full plot summary (the closest in Black Mirror is Men Against Fire, and that at most puts and explains the twists), the setup is good enough. — Bilorv (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, my stance is not against spoilers - otherwise I would cut the mention of the character death in the second paragraph. But as my comment made clear, checking the rest of Black Mirror episodes, as much as the twists always get in the lead because they're crucial in discussing the episode (otherwise there wouldn't be 'werewolf' in Mazey Day, 'simulated reality' in San Junipero, and as I mentioned just about the whole plot paragraph of Men Against Fire), none of the articles go through the whole plot (hell, White Bear cites a twist in the lead but doesn't spell it out). Just seemed like too much detail for an introduction. But I digress, Bilorv as the primary editor still has the priority and I won't complain if he keeps it the way it was. igordebraga ≠ 09:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how clear the relevance of streaming television and the connection to "Joan Is Awful" is without mention of Streamberry (and thus of the documentary that was produced, not by Davis/Pia), but I won't revert. I feel much more strongly about "Mazey Day" and "San Junipero". — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to give the Second World War as an example to illustrate your point. Historical events don't have spoilers. If I told someone, who'd (somehow) never heard of the Second World War before, that it ended with an Allied victory, they wouldn't respond by going 'oh great, thanks for spoiling it...'.

The Second World War is a historical event, but we're talking about a filmic narrative, where spoilers are very much an unwelcome thing. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense as an example because Wikipedians are explicitly instructed not to take into account whether something is a spoiler. This is something that was litigated and relitigated to death 15 years ago and the community found a consensus not to censor or warn of spoilers. — Bilorv (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My dude, if you'd just said this at the very beginning then this entire conversation would've never needed to have taken place.

I understand now why the spoilers are going to remain in the article - if that's written into Wikipedia constitution then fair enough, I can't argue with that. I do, however, absolutely stand by my point about the redundancy of citing the Second World War. The notion of historical events have "spoilers" is literally incoherent. 31.94.21.150 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Loch Henry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 7% or more found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues; matches were titles, attributed quotes, or examples acceptable per WP:LIMITED such as "the second episode of the" and "Davis's mother Janet (Monica Dolan)". 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.	Reflects sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Suitable FUR for the poster. The other images are CC or PD.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant. Captions are fine.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.
- Replaced. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources all seem fine.
Plot summary seems fine, from my recollection of the episode.
Spot check on "Historical technology is key to the episode, such as the VHS recordings of Bergerac " - no issues. (I was hoping this could be expanded on, but there's not enough in the source to allow that)
Spot check on "Brooker observed that the "texture of old media" had become fetishised" - no issues. I'm not sure "observed" is quite right as it's not an objective assessment.
- Changed to "remarked". — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on "Kirsty Wark presents Blenkins's character with a BAFTA;" - not verified by the archived copy of the cited source
- Bad copy-and-paste: I meant to cite the i review of "Loch Henry", not the "Joan Is Awful" one, but also got the two reviewers (both named Emily) mixed up. (Wark is also mentioned here and here and possibly it's evident in the credits.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on "Weruche Opia also plays herself at a BAFTA event" - no issues. (Maybe add a comma after "herself"?)
- Comma added. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on "Portman said he had "never laughed out loud so much" when reading a script" - source qualifies this with "..on first reading"
- Now "when first reading". — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on "As she still owned a VHS, her knowledge of its features was useful on set." - self-reported, but, I think, uncontroversial enough that it doesn't need to be qualified in the text, so no issues
Spot checks on "according to i's Emily Bootle, it reveals the genre as "pointless" and "empty"" and "The characters get into a car crash because they are distracted by singing a comedy song about Adair torturing his victims" - not verified by the archived copy of the cited source, please check all the citations currently to Bootle's i article.
- As above. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on "Tourists in the Lochside Inn wear identical masks as costumes" - no issues.
I'm not really sure if "deserted" is quite the right word in the plot sumamry and lead; to me it implies "completely empty of people". Isn't the town something like "largely deserted"?
- Now "run-down" after a long consideration of adjectives ("desolate", "isolated", "ruined" etc.). — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Bilorv. I couldn't find much to suggest on this one. Placing it on hold. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, BennyOnTheLoose! I think I've addressed all these points. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.