Talk:The National Anthem (Black Mirror)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The National Anthem (Black Mirror)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing this one so quickly! I'm gonna open with some discussion of the image, if that's okay, as the infobox image is something I forgot to check before nominating. The rationale at the moment isn't sufficient, and though I believe it would meet NFCC with a proper rationale, I think there's probably a better image. Usually, the reviews give a good indication of which frames are most characteristic of the episode and most critically commented on. In this case, reviews are bimodal between an image of Callow watching the TV during the raid on an empty building ([1][2][3][4][5]) and an image of Callow and the pig ([6][7][8][9][10]). I suspect that the first image was a press image distributed to critics before the episode aired. The second seems characteristic of the episode, and there's a lot of content in the article about (a) why/how the pig was chosen (see "Conception and writing") and (b) Kinnear's acting as Callow ("Critical reception"). My only concern is whether it's gratuitously graphic, and of finding a good frame to use ([11] might be best, after cropping the top "4" logo out). Does that image look good? — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv hey, no problem. I give you a D+ because I did tell you to let me know if you ever did another one of these!! No, seriously, I intend to take my time on this one so it might be a few days, and I'll enjoy going back over the episode one more time too. As to the image, I understand your position and I'll make sure I give a clear statement there during the review. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "Channel 4, on 4 December 2011." no need for the comma.
• "a person kidnaps a member" reads a little odd to me.

  Yeah I felt this when I wrote it, but couldn't see better wording at the time. Does this work: a member of the British royal family is kidnapped and will only be released if the British prime minister Michael Callow has sexual intercourse with a pig on live television. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott," not sure the authors need to be named in the lead.
• "1.9 million" I always use non-breaking spaces between these kinds of things.

  Yep, and the "9 p.m." should have had them too. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "for the programme" I think this ought to be series.
• "British Prime Minister" be consistent with the capitalisation throughout.

  Consistently lower case now. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "a beloved royal," do we know she's "beloved"?
  • Ah, yes we do. "Princess sweetheart..."

    Indeed, I think she's written with Diana in mind but that's OR. Definitely beloved though. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "D-notice" -> "D-Notice".
• "thousands of people," tens of thousands (I think 50,000 was mentioned).
• I love rewatching... the news report mentions Bloom's exhibition being shut down three weeks early, I missed this both times previously. I guess it's speculation to note this as a precursor to the kidnapping?
  • Oh absolutely. In later episodes the news tickers never waste an opportunity to reference a previous episode, but in the first episode the only thing it can reference is something that will happen later... Original research though, and unfortunately critics don't seem to spot this detail. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• " technical specifications." perhaps " technical specifications for the broadcast."?
• Maybe worth noting that the identity and/or motivation of the kidnapper is completely unknown to the security services.

  I think the unknown identity is implied when nothing is said to the contrary, but I've tweaked a little bit to try to mention motivation naturally, because I think this would be a question you'd ask if you hadn't seen the episode: As ransom, the kidnapper demands that the prime minister have sexual intercourse with a pig, live on national television, for motives unknown. These demands were posted on YouTube. Let me know if this flows naturally enough—this episode and Shut Up and Dance both have the annoyance that you can't refer to the kidnapper by a pronoun, singular or plural or gendered or ungendered, because you don't know anything about what the kidnapper is (at least at this point in the plot). — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "whom she sent sexually explicit photographs to" -> "to whom she sent sexually explicit selfies."?
• "at the scene" I think "studio" is more specific here.
• Worth noting the pressure applied to the PM directly by the Queen?

  This was something I tried to squeeze in when rewriting the plot but I really struggled for something concrete to say: we know the Queen has arrived and then she implies to Callow that he should comply with the kidnapper, but with lots of plausible deniability. Given the word limit, I think it's on the cutting room floor. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "building where the YouTube video was first uploaded from. It is a decoy" -> "building from where the YouTube video was first uploaded but it is a decoy".
• "programmes. The programme" repetitive.

  Changed to "programmes. The series". — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "creator Charlie Brooker had " Brooker overlinked.
• "disgusting animal parts." not encyclopedic in tone.
• "producer Annabel Jones described " Jones overlinked.
• ". Lindsay Duncan plays the Home Secretary Alex Cairns and Alex Macqueen plays Special Agent Callett, whilst Anna Wilson-Jones ha" all three actors overlinked.
• "Annabel Jones was keen " do you mean "Wilson-Jone was keen", i.e. her full surname and no need to repeat her first name?

  No, this is the confusion I was hoping to avoid. Annabel Jones is executive producer and Anna Wilson-Jones is an actor. The sentence is "Annabel Jones was keen ..." I only used her first name to avoid confusion with Wilson-Jones, but it didn't occur to me that their first names are from the same root. Jones is mentioned above twice but I think the best solution is to repeat her role again just for clarity: During the casting process, executive producer Annabel Jones ... Let me know if you've got a better solution though. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "avoid comedy actors so that a humorous tone could be avoided." avoid avoided ... repetitive.

  Now keen to hire non-comedy actors so that a humorous tone could be avoided. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• " scene was done in only a couple" was completed in..?
• "registered surprises" surprise.
• " are angry at" were?
• " in June 2013 as " maybe contextualise, 18 months after the UK airing.

  Changed to The episode aired in Australia in June 2013, a year and a half after the UK premiere. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• " in Kings Cross, New South Wales in" comma after NSW.
• Twitter is overlinked.
• As is The Guardian.
• "a programme which Brooker took inspiration from." ->" a programme from which Brooker took inspiration."
• "on Twitter following" overlinked again.
• " on Channel 4 on 4" Ch 4 overlinked.
• "complaints to Ofcom, with 145 complaints" complaints repeated.

  Now received the eighth-most complaints to Ofcom, a total of 145 ranging from. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• References section looks forced to a certain width, these days just let {{reflist}} do its own thing.
• "p. 6–13" etc should be pp.
• "Netflix original television series episodes" I'm not sure about this. This had nothing to do with Netflix. Indeed Netflix isn't even mentioned in the article.

  Oh absolutely. Must have missed that these were added to all the C4 episodes. Removed from them all. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have. Thanks for the pleasure of re-watching it and the opportunity to comment on this great article. Once we've addressed those, we can chat about the image. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright great, everything addressed and/or responded to. I enjoyed my rewatch too—there's just so much detail in this one and such a fast pace, I always manage to focus on a storyline I had sidelined the previous watch. — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I just unlinked some of the overlinked actor names. As for the image, while the one you're suggesting is pretty close to the "edge", it is indeed a good capture of the salient points of the episode. So perhaps that should be the one to use. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I've added that image to the infobox. — Bilorv (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm promoting. I can't wait for you to do another one. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, see you on the next one! — Bilorv (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Language to use for Piggate

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Piggate#Proposal to be explicit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging The Rambling Man since you seem to be the only other editor who's been active at this talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Differing viewing figures

Per Broadcasters' Audience Research Board's website it says [12] the episode recieved 2.07 million, however The Guardian [13] says 1.9 million. Is there a reason for this discrepancy or am I missing something. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, The Guardian is giving overnight figures but BARB is giving (I think) 7-day figures. Bit weird to cite The Guardian's figure rather than just BARB, and I can't remember why I did that—should I up it to 2.07 million and change "overnight" to "7-day data"? — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not very famliar with how TV rating like this work. So The Guardian's figure of 1.9 million is those who tuned in live on the night of its first viewing (if so where did The Guardian get this data from?) whereas BARB's 2.07 million is from the live showing on the night + 7 day extra (are the extra 7 days from repeats of the show?). We could possibly include both but it at the moment just trying to figure out how these ratings work.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian is getting its information from a subscription to BARB (here's broadly how BARB works), but using overnight figures. I think, based on this, that the extra viewers in the seven-day data are the people who recorded the programme and watched it back within a week (and not within the same day). It wouldn't count repeats of the same episode, which would be measured as separate programmes (but very rarely break the top 30, so you won't see them often in the free data).

I think both figures would be overboard, and either one is fine but maybe the seven-day data is preferable as it's more accurate (the main advantage of overnight data is that you can report on it less than a week after a programme airs). — Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see think I understand how it works now, thanks for explaining Bilorv. I agree that the 7-day figure straight from BARB makes sense to use here (and would match the other C4 episodes) rather than the The Guardian for overnight figures, with the possibliltiy of having an efn with alternate figure to be "comprehensive". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've just added the 7-day figure and removed the Guardian source. — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)