Talk:The Bill (Inside No. 9)

Sources

• Western Mail
• Ward
• Telegraph
• Gilbert
• Jones
• Connell
• Shennan
• Wilson
• Billen:

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:The Bill (Inside No. 9)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Production

   "was released in January 2016, when the series began filming" - I suggest rephrasing as "was released when the series began filming in January 2016." This will remove a comma and make it read a little easier.

   Tweaked. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   " "The Devil of Christmas", the first episode..." - This sentence is rather long. I think it should be broken up, but have no particular preference on how.

   Tweaked. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   "from a group the Shearsmith and Pemberton, the series' creators, had seen" - I suggest combining this sentence with the next one, along the lines of "Inspiration for "The Bill" came when Shearsmith and Pemberton, the series' creators, saw a group arguing with each other over a bill at a restaurant."

   Tweaked. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   Is Ellie White or Callum Coates notable enough for a redlink?

   White possibly, Coates probably not. I love redlinks, but WP:REDNOT advises against redlinks on people's names. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

   So it does! Thanks for pointing that out. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   Plot

   Per MOS:TVPLOT, "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words". Current length is 694 words. I think there's ample room for trimming - the parts about the mints and Anushka's role seem rather trivial, for example. I will revisit this section after your response.

   Yes, thanks, good point. I've trimmed it down to 400 words. Though they're only half an hour, these episodes are incredibly rich, with detailed characters, red herrings and subtle nods to what is and is not going on, so I think I have a tendency to write too much (the fact that Craig is so nervous about Anushka finding something may be important; for example, perhaps he is a criminal, which may help explain the really quite bizarre final scene). Josh Milburn (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

   I can relate to that. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

   Analysis

   no concerns - excellent work here.

   Reception

   "given a ratings of" - should be "given ratings of" or "given a rating of".

   Thanks, fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

   Lead

   no concern

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Several of the references (such as #11) don't cite an author, but the sources (such as the BBC) are reliable. A spot check confirms the authors are not named.

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig results are weak and caused by attributed quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   no concern

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern - the reception section was particularly thorough.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   article is only 10 days old and has 2 unique editors.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   rationales provided

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   caption is suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have finished adding notes. I will be offline this weekend, so it will be a couple days before I can respond to any updates/changes. Sorry for the delay. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   All concerns addressed. Pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for your time; thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2017 (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.

To add

References