Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2018 [1].

The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9) edit

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a half-hour (very, very black) comedy about cryptic crosswords. I've never attempted a cryptic crossword, and I didn't find the episode particularly funny. Nonetheless, I think it might be my favourite ever episode of my favourite ever TV programme. It is brilliant, and I spot something new every time I rewatch it. I hope this article is a worthy one for such a great piece of television. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bilorv edit

  • "A second was introduced accidentally, and then incorporated into the episode. This second nina was interpreted by some viewers as having a political meaning, but Pemberton, Shearsmith, and the BBC have denied that this is the case." – The second sentence is just confusing without being told the nina is "RIPNHS". I think it's also undue weight anyway; just the first sentence would suffice.
    • Yes, that's fair. Removed. I try to avoid anything too spoiler-y in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the third episode of the series, after the Christmas special "The Devil of Christmas" (December 2016) and "The Bill" (February 2017), the latter of which was the first of a run of five episodes." – This seems like a weird order to write things in. I would say that "The Devil of Christmas" was a 2016 Christmas special, and then the rest of the series aired in a run from February 2017, of which "The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the second of five (or third in the series).
  • Can the running time be added as a parameter to the infobox? (It might also be worth a mention in the production section – was the final cut exactly 33 minutes long?)
    • Indicated based on claims from BBFC. That doesn't quite match up with losing five minutes, so I've rephrased slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "civilisation was then "stripped away"" – I don't understand the "then". Does it refer to a change in the writing process or the chronology of the episode? I also don't understand how this links to the previous "very English" clause.
    • I've rephrased: "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, played out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode were, for the writers, very English; the episode then changes character. Civilisation is "stripped away", resulting in the episode having the elements of a Greek tragedy." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elsewhere, Pemberton explained that" – The "Elsewhere" is unnecessary as the sources for the previous sentences were not mentioned in the prose.
  • "On a stormy Cambridge night" – Surely this should be "On a stormy night at the University of Cambridge".
  • "predicting that a DOWNANDOUT will find Charlotte WRAPped in her UNDERSLIP in SWAMPLANDS" – As well as looking messy, these clues have already been revealed: I think it would be better to write "predicting via reference to solved clues that a down-and-out will find Charlotte wrapped in her underslip in swamplands (references to previous clues)".
  • "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS (("Rest In Peace National Health Service") was a political message" – It seems misleading to me to give the 'explanation' in brackets when Shearsmith is saying that is not what the nina refers to. The clause could be rephrased to "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS stood for "Rest In Peace National Health Service"" or something similar.
  • "ironic" does not need a link to irony.
  • The blockquote from the Den of Geek review probably belongs under Analysis rather than Reception.
    • I've sympathy with that idea, but I'm inclined to think that it belongs in the reception section as a demonstration of the (highly praised) attention to detail. I'm inclined to think it's a little laudatory to be framed as dispassionate academic-style analysis. I can look into moving it if you/others strongly disagree with me, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these 1(a) concerns, I think the article meets the FA criteria. It is very comprehensive in coverage and an excellent article on what is also my favourite Inside No. 9 episode. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've made one uncontroversial edit, and all my comments have been addressed. I would still prefer the Den of Geek quote to go in the Analysis section but I am not particularly bothered about this and I can see the case for it to belong under Reception. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks! I have changed 31 minutes to 32 minutes, as the 35 seconds would presumably round up, rather than down! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edwininlondon edit

I'm not familiar with the subject but found this an interesting read. The article looks worthy of FA status but a few comments:

  • all FA articles I checked all started with the plot as first section. Is there a reason to deviate?
    • I followed the production-plot-analysis-reception structure in my other film/TV FAs. It just makes more sense to me; it feels chronological! It's (roughly) "Here's what happened before it was shown, here's what happened in the thing, here's what was really going on in the thing, here's what people said about the thing after the fact." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Summer 2015 --> I found this odd, why not describe everything chronologically?
    • The paragraphs are thematic, rather than chronological; I can move things around if you think it doesn't currently make sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Summer 2015 --> I'm not a native speaker, but just checking if this should not just simply be lowercase "in the summer of"?
  • was originally Morales's --> just checking the need of originally here: am I right to infer that there is some dispute about whose idea this was? If uncontroversial it's probably better to drop originally
  • play Sleuth,[12] Shearsmith --> should that comma be a full stop?
    • No, it's part of a list; Pemberton said this, Shearsmith said this, and BBC producers said this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: He selected the episode as one of his favourites from the third series.--> I don't think this is needed in the caption, it makes it unnecessarily long
  • Pemberton also noted that not everyone enjoys crosswords, ... Tyler. --> this sentence would fit better in the next section
  • Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword: these challenges, he explained, would lead to the writers producing their best work. --> doesn't really flow for me. Two times explained, mix of tenses. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword. Such constraints, he felt, encourage them to produce their best work." Is that better? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode's second nina --> which is what?
    • I would rather avoid specifying it here to avoid spoilers. My understanding is that it is acceptable to avoid "springing" a spoiler on someone (such as in the lead or a production section). Spoilers are naturally going to be present in (for example) the plot and analysis sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two of them, Pemberton explained, --> I don't think that "Pemberton explained" is needed
  • Suddenly spluttering, .... She suddenly --> repetition
  • predicting that a predicting --> ?
  • Nina, as well as being the name --> this has already been explained in an earlier section
    • The article is yet to tie together the name of the character with the crosswording term. I know it might sound obvious given what's already said in the article, but I have no doubt that a lot of viewers will have missed the reference, and it's something that several sources point to, so I think there's a good case for leaving it in. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, and thanks for your edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image. The same comment applies for the images in the body of the article.
  • For this part (but particular inspiration came from Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.), I would make it clear in the prose that Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword is a book as it was not immediately clear to me.
  • Please link Inside No. 9 on its first appearance in the body of the article.
  • For this part (at the end of the episode, Squires faces a situation that mirrors a situation faced by Michael Gambon's Albert Spica), I would avoid the repetition of the word “situation” in such close proximity.
  • The references for this sentence (Pemberton had long been a fan of cryptic crosswords, and he was inspired to develop the episode by reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.) are out of order. The same comment applies to this sentence (Reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee led Pemberton to ask whether one could "dramatize doing a crossword, which is so un-dramatic?”).
  • Just a clarification question, but is the word “nina” something that was already associated with crossword puzzles or did the writers of the show invent it for the episode? Is it at all related to the character Nina?
    • It's a word used by crossworders, but probably not well-known outside of that world. The character was named Nina (at least in part) because of this fact. @Edwininlondon: This is perhaps a demonstration of why I want to keep the explicit mention in the analysis section! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • I am a little confused by this part (she was "devious and deadly”) for the use of the quote. Is this quote from the episode? If so, do you think you should attribute who said it in the prose?
  • I am a little confused by the Charlotte/Nina parts. Is Charlotte Nina’s real name? Do you think more context would be helpful here?
    • Yes. I have few words to play with in this section, so I'm nervous about adding much more explanation. I thought that was clear from this: "He tells Charlotte—"Nina"—to". Do you think more is needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that I was following it correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (Tyler hands Squires the flesh, and he eats, fearing Charlotte will die.). I was under the impression from the previous paragraph that Tyler was one that proposed that Squires should eat Charlotte, which by extension I had assumed that he wanted her to die. In the above sentence, he does not appear to want Charlotte to be dead or eaten so I am a little lost here. I apologize if this is very obvious.
    • It's Squires who's scared; he fears for her life, and so eats in the hope that once that's out of the way, something can be done to save Charlotte. I've rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (Squires confirms that his middle name is Hector as he weeps over Charlotte). Was there a particular reason that Squire mourns Charlotte’s death? Was it because of the reveal that she is Tyler’s daughter?
    • She's his daughter! "However, Simon's autopsy—Tyler explains—revealed that Simon and Charlotte were actually Squires's children". (Not to mention the fact that there's a dead student on the floor of his office and he's published a crossword that basically says he killed her. Everything has come crashing down around him.) It's a hugely twisty-turny plot... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referenes are out of order for these parts (drawing upon gothic themes) and (A number of critics identified Sleuth—"a grandfather of sorts" to Inside No. 9—as a key influence.).
  • The citations for this part (The episode was widely noted as both very dark) are out of order. It also borders on citation overkill (as there are six citations here). Maybe bundle them together to avoid this?
    • I can't bundle them together without changing my whole citation style, sadly. I've trimmed two of the less useful references and reordered the others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for this part (with particular praise for Roach,) are out of order.
  • For this part (Patrick Mulkern, writing for RadioTimes.com,), do you think it should be Radio Times instead of RadioTimes.com?
    • I don't honestly know if it was published in the print version, so I'd rather specify just the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this. Once my comments and questions are addessed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant edit

One of the first articles that I reviewed at GA! I'd love to take a look. VedantTalk 13:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments:

  • Why italicise "Sphinx"?
  • I know that this might complicate the sentence, but the mention of Shearsmith as Dr Jacob Tyler, another Cambridge academic at the end is a little odd. Why not have it as right next to mention of the other two?
  • The article also seems​ to not italicise "Sphinx" and put it in quotes later in the lead.
  • I've been told that the among others bit can be WAFFLE.
I've been told that if the details of the "among others" is worth mentioning you should spell it out or drop the "among others" altogether.
  • Why not mention the year of the play as the article does for the film?
  • "clashing with first episode of the third series of Catastrophe, the acclaimed Channel 4 comedy" - Is this really important? I mean I would get it if it affected the ratings and stuff, but did it?
    • I couldn't say for sure, but it was picked up on by at least one critic. It certainly seemed to affect the number of reviews published. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "filmed in December of that year" - Isn't filmed in December that year just fine too?
  • You could replace onr of the "filmed" with "shot" in the following sentence.
    • I already use the word "shot" in the sentence, and I worry it's a bit of an Americanism, so I'd rather not! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this is an awfully long sentence. One might loose track of all the details. It might just be me though.
  • I do not get this bit: "as well as the house of Oscar Lomax in the Shearsmith and Pemberton collaboration Psychoville".
    • Shearsmith and Pemberton previously did a programme called Psychoville. On Psychoville, there was a character called Oscar Lomax, and Langleybury was used as the character's house. I've rephrased this slightly but I'm not quite sure what isn't clear! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, idk Oscar Lomax somehow didn't strike me as a character name, Apologies!
  • "The script was 32 pages in length, resulting in a first cut that was 38 minutes in length." - 38 minutes long? to avoid repetition?
  • "the production team still needed to lose several minutes in the edit" - too wordy for me, can't we just say had to shorten it? a more suitable one word verb?
    • I am not sure it would be clear what the it referred to if I was to say that. " The BBC permitted the final version to be a little longer than the half hour typical of Inside No. 9, but the production team still needed to shorten it." I could say "shorten the first cut", but then that's not very interesting; I think first cuts basically always need to be shortened. Having to lose several minutes in the edit for a 30 minute episode is (I think) quite significant. I'm definitely open to suggestions, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's alright the way it is.
  • Is there a reason why the article uses such long sentences. the opening one of the second paragraph of the Production section is real long (almost ahlf the paragraph).
    • Probably bad writing on my part! I have reworded this (I assume you meant "third paragraph"), as you aren't the first person to pick up on that sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that, it reads almost brilliantly! xD
  • Release years could be added for the films and publications used.
  • The article mentions that "Sleuth" is a play, but doesn't do the same off any of the other plays/movies/books/TV shows?
    • Yes, that's fair. I've expanded a little; I think I got everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the rest soon. VedantTalk 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not see any more obvious changes that need to be made, the analysis and reception section are really well written. I think you might have missed a couple of release years here and there and another reading might help fix that, but other than that I can support this for promotion on the prose standards. Good luck! P.S. I really have to watch this episode now. VedantTalk 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot for your comments! Point taken on "among others". I'll have a think about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley edit

I don't see television much, haven't heard of the series in question, and thought Rees Shearsmith was an actress, but the words "cryptic crossword" caught my eye. A few minor comments, which I hope will be of use:

  • Production
    • "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, plays out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode are, for the writers, very English" – I don't quite understand what this is trying to get across. Why is the first half for the producer and the other part for the writers? Or does it perhaps mean "in the opinion of the producer" etc?
      • Yes, sorry; I suppose that "for the" construction is a little odd. I've removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "keeping the cast small, meanwhile, kept production costs low" – the import of the "meanwhile" isn't clear.
      • I was meaning to suggest that the smaller cast wasn't solely for financial purposes. I've gone with "keeping the cast small also served to keep production costs relatively low". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossword setting
    • "Such constraints, he felt, encourage them" – is there a clash of tenses here?
      • In the past he made a general claim about what is the case. It'd be like saying "Nietzsche claimed that God is dead." Do you think the current wording is problematic? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "prior to working" – I'm with Fowler: why use "prior to" in preference to a plain "before"? Here and in the next paragraph.
  • Plot
    • Caption: In what way does the picture show an adaptation of My Fair Lady? It looks exactly like the familiar My Fair Lady.
  • Analysis
    • "cruciverbalists" – could do with a link to Wiktionary or somewhere. Not a word many readers will know.
    • "George Bernard Shaw" – it would be a courtesy, as well as following general scholarly practice, to pipe this to "Bernard Shaw", which is how Shaw insisted on being known and is how most leading Shaw scholars term him. See here. (Not a chance of amending the title of the WP article on him, for obvious reasons, without wishing to be rude about our American cousins. Palliative measures are the best we can get away with.)
    • "Higgins's line "By Jove, I think she's got it!"" – Higgins has no such line in the musical. Best not to misquote.
      • I blame my source for that. There're definitely allusions, so I've changed the sentence to "while Squires's language echoes that of Higgins in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of the play". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. An unpleasant subject, but the main author has dealt with it commendably. Tim riley talk 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a read through. Watching the episode has made me think about giving a crossword a try, but I'm yet to pick one up... I should probably start with some novice puzzles and work my way up... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support. I'll drop you a line on your talk page about ways into cryptic crosswords for those who are so inclined. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/Spot check from Cas Liber edit

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • FN 24 - used 6 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 29 - used 2 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 30 - used once. material faithful to source
  • Earwigs has inflated score due to (attributed) direct quotes - copyvio clear.
Thanks, appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, can I check whether you're signing off on source reliability as well as formatting and spotchecks? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. looks ok to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

  • There are a few of duplinks that you could review but I won't hold up promotion over them (ping me if you need a link to the checker).
  • I also notice a few instances where citations are not in chronological order -- if this is deliberate because you want them in order of how they support the preceding text, fair enough, but thought I'd mention it in case.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Riddle_of_the_Sphinx_(Inside_No._9)/archive1&oldid=1138473467"