Talk:USS Callister/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This review notes that Nosedive, another episode of Black Mirror with similar awards and notability, is already a Good article. As well as judging the article against Good article criteria, this review shall also compare it to the other article.

In comparison to Nosedive:
- The lead is easily comparable, and can be rated at the same standard. Both have a good prose to introduce the episode, provide a synopsis, note production facts, and note comparisons to real life. The USS Callister lead does not mention an uptake in production and move to Netflix because it is in a later season than Nosedive, when this was no longer new.
- The infobox is formatted the same; differences are the crew members, as there were different positions.
- The organisation of sections is mostly in the same order; however, the "Analysis" section on the USS Callister article is above the "Production" section when it is below this section on the Nosedive article.
  - I've moved "Analysis" below "Production". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot section is longer on the USS Callister article, though the episode can be seen as having a more complex premise and climax, which allows for the extra length. Both are constructed similarly, and written with the same explanatory voice.
- The opening to the production section is lacking compared to Nosedive, possibly because of little information or reliable sources. However, it is a reasonable assumption that similar production background exists, which should be added.
  - I've expanded it a little. Part of the reason this is shorter is the existence of the "Marketing" section in this article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsection called "Conception and writing" on the Nosedive article is only called "Writing" on the USS Callister article, I would recommend using the "Conception and writing" title, as it is more accurate.
  - Done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain parts of the text in the "Cast and filming" subsection on the USS Callister article could serve better filling in the "Production" section or being separated to "Casting", then reducing the remaining text subsection to simply "Filming". Parts are:

""USS Callister" stars Jesse Plemons as Captain Daly and Cristin Milioti as Lieutenant Cole, both previous stars of Fargo. Director Toby Haynes notes that "they always wanted Jesse Plemons for the role of Daly", and that the filming dates and other cast were based around him.[25] Milioti accepted the role having only seen a few pages of the script; she says in an interview that Nanette is "a woman in charge [fighting] against a small-minded, misogynist bully".[24] Jimmi Simpson (formerly known from Westworld) and Michaela Coel of Chewing Gum are also main characters in the episode; Coel has appeared in previous Black Mirror episode "Nosedive".[26][27][28] Simpson was ill with the flu during filming but noted that his character was intended to be skinny.[9]"

"Aaron Paul makes a vocal cameo appearance at the end of the episode, whilst Plemons' fiancée Kirsten Dunst makes an uncredited appearance in the background early in the episode.[29] Paul's character was originally supposed to be a geeky kid, but Brooker felt that the idea that computer gamers are creepy was wrong, and "he felt like it was talking down to the audience" as he is a gamer himself.[30] He then came up with the idea that the best voice would be Paul's character Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad, which Plemons had also appeared in alongside Paul as the character Todd Alquist. They approached Paul, who was a fan of Black Mirror, and he accepted the part on the condition that his appearance in this episode did not preclude him from being part of another Black Mirror episode.[31][30] The part was one of the last elements of the episode to be finished, and surprised members of the cast when it was screened.[30]"

Yep, I've separated them. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article could benefit from a subsection on "Music", as Nosedive has, especially since USS Callister has won and been nominated for multiple awards for sound mixing.

Very good point. In fact a couple of the sources were written very recently because of the Emmy nomination for Pemberton. I've added a section on music. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a "Marketing" subsection, which Nosedive does not. This subsection is well written, and has sufficient and appropriate content.
The "Analysis" section, though in a different place, follows a similar format, of other media similarities, critics' analyses, and Easter Eggs and similarities to previous episodes. The USS Callister article includes references to similar things from the episode that exist, whilst Nosedive has a whole subsection because of the extensive comparisons it has to one such thing.
The "Reception" sections are comparable in voice and style, as well as in layout of content.
The "Episode ranking" sections are identical in format.
The "Awards" sections are also identical in format; as a side note, this section of the Nosedive article may need updating.

Updated the Hugo Award. The Emmys are still pending. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the use of "USS Callister"/"Nosedive" vs. "This episode..." is comparable between articles.
The articles have almost the same number of references, a suitable number (71 and 72) for articles of this type and length.
The articles have a similar number of images. Both could use perhaps one or two more, but this does not take away from the good standard.
In comparison to Nosedive, the USS Callister article would need some edits for style.

Good article criteria:

1. Style — needs some work

The main concern with style is format layout (GA criteria 1b "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] layout"/"coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections"). Some pieces of information are grouped either illogically or unnecessarily, which is especially noticeable when it is not in line with the Good standard in comparable article Nosedive. The "Analysis" section should be moved below the "Production" section to fulfil this criteria. It is also recommended that the "Cast and filming" subsection be split, that the "Writing" subsection be renamed to "Conception and writing", and that, if possible, suitable information be used to fill the "Production" section lead, which is lacking.

Yep, done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some terminology confusion. In the second paragraph of the lead, it describes Daly's actions as "using his co-workers' DNA to create sentient digital clones of them". Later in this paragraph, the article refers to "copies" as if the reader should know what this means. Here, "sentient digital clones" and "copies" refer to the same thing, but the latter term hasn't been established. Some clarification of this is needed to fulfil the GA criteria 1a ("the prose is clear").

Fixed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most sections are well paragraphed; the "Plot" section is of particular note. For the most part, the article reads well.
The "Analysis" section is well paragraphed, with the exception of the two-sentence paragraph beginning "The procedurally-generated game...", which does not flow well when read. This is a minor note, a suggestion to improve the article would be to incorporate this short paragraph into another one of the same section, or to rephrase it.

I've moved it to the first paragraph, and then split that paragraph in two. I think now it works better, with the first paragraph about inspiration and influences, and the second about the general tone and plot. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good voice throughout. There are no clear grammatical mistakes.
Parts of the criteria are met:

Criteria 1a ("the spelling and grammar are correct") is met.
Criteria 1b ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for [...] words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation") are met.
Criteria 1b ("the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic") is met.
Criteria 1 ("appropriate use of wikilinks") is met.

2. Verifiability — meets criteria.

Special note to thank the users in the article talk page, where there are many discussions regarding not including Original Research, and removing the use of unreliable sources.

Criteria 2a ("it contains a list of all references") is met.
Criteria 2b ("all in-line citations are from reliable sources") is met.
Criteria 2b ("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 [...] are from reliable sources") are met.

The quote box is a good, reliable, notable quotation. The statistic are listed directly in their sources. Opinions are either quoted verbatim or in obvious context. Controversial statements come from reliable sources, especially in regards to media and scandals (i.e. the Harvey Weinstein connections). There is no contentions BLP material.

Criteria 2c ("it contains no original research") is met.

3. Coverage — meets criteria

It could be mentioned in the lead that the episode, similar to other Black Mirror episodes, and at 76 minutes long, was produced like a film, if there are good sources. Reference [2], from The Independent, [32] from IGN, and [46] from The Verge may be such sources.

I've not done this because I don't think it's a particular exception for the series, and we've got the running time in the infobox. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the lead of the "Production" section is lacking. This could be expanded.
There are no glaring omissions of information.
Still, the "Episode rankings" section could include the episode's rank within series four, when this information becomes available.

Not sure exactly what you mean – the second list (Forbes, WhatCulture, TVLine, Independent) is the list of rankings within series four. The preface to the list was attached to a paragraph about an overall Mashable ranking, which may have confused you – I've split these sentences into different paragraphs for clarity. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic") is met.
Criteria 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail") is met — the article is notably tight to its subject, whilst not being stingy on information or level of detail, which is worthy of commendation.
Criteria 3 ("The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.") is met and exceeded; the article can be seen to be completely comprehensive, with certain exceptions.

4. Neutrality — meets criteria

There are few controversial statements. Such statements invoke a source in discussion, which aids neutrality, and do not diverge from simple sentence structure. The statements are factual and phrased well for context, e.g. "Some critics saw the episode as about male abuse of authority, and have compared Daly to recent events[...]", which is written neutral towards opinions of the episodes, and "such as putting Lowry in a red uniform since she was the first to be killed off", which is written neutral towards incorporating Star Trek references and killing off a character. Multiple views of the episode are represented, as for elements within the episode. Paragraphs noting views both ways and switching between sources have a good voice that maintains neutrality as well as having strong style and manner.

Criteria 4 ("it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each") is met.
Criteria 4 ("the article describes disputes without engaging in them") is met.

5. Stability — meets criteria

There is no edit warring or page issues.

Criteria 5 ("no ongoing edit wars") is met.
Criteria 5 ("[no] content dispute") is met.

6. Illustration — meets criteria

The infobox is sufficient, with two additional images in the article, of cast members. This is about the same level of illustration as similar pages.
The quote box in the "Writing" section is used appropriately.

Criteria 6 ("Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio"/"Images are encouraged but not required") is met.
Criteria 6b ("media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions") is met.
Criteria 6a ("media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content") are met.

7. Copyright — meets criteria

Criteria 2d ("it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism") is met.
Criteria 6a ("media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content") are met.
Criteria 7 ("The article is free of obvious copyright violations.") is met to the extent that is clear.

This article is close to Good article status To become a Good article it needs to fulfil: Criteria 1a "the prose is clear" and Criteria 1b "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections". There are some other minor concerns, but which would not need to be changed to attain Good status. Kingsif (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the very detailed review! I think I've addressed all the key points raised, but let me know if there's anything more to be done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the areas to work on have been improved, the article now meets all criteria for a Good article. Thank you for swiftly working on it! Kingsif (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]