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) 11:26, 27 May 2015 [1].

---

A Quiet Night In[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X (talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

• Joyce Veheary and Kayvan Novak also star. - I'd put this somewhere else, as it's in between two sentences related to the plot
  • Moved. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally prefer "Plot" being before "Production", but I guess the MOS doesn't require it.
  • I prefer it my way around as it offers a rough chronology- it was made, it was broadcast, there was a response. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says "There is no defined order of the sections." I do have sympathy for your way around- I think a certain degree of author's choice is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, agree (hence "I guess the MOS doesn't require it".) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• He looks to the fake painting, - Don't recall a fake painting being mentioned before this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ray cuts away the canvas and replaces it with kitchen roll." Does this need to be stressed a bit more? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. If others miss this, it might be worth emphasis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Critics generally responded positively to "A Quiet Night In". David Chater, writing for The Times, gave an extremely positive review, - positive/positive — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

• File:Inside No 9, A Quiet Night In poster.jpg - Fine.
• File:Reece Shearsmith.jpg - Fine
• File:Denis Lawson cropped.jpg - Fine
• File:Charlie Chaplin.jpg - Source for this digitization?
  • Unclear- this seems to be older than the many other versions of it on the Internet. If it's a dealbreaker, I can swap it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd use one of the many other images of Chaplin, to be safe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swapped with one with clearer provenance. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - piano concerto no. 2 in c minor, op. 18 - i. moderato.ogg, File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - piano concerto no. 2 in c minor, op. 18 - ii. adagio sostenuto.ogg, and File:Sergei Rachmaninoff - piano concerto no. 2 in c minor, op. 18 - iii. allegro scherzando.ogg - Couple things. First, these need clarification as to why the composition itself is PD (PD-70 for Russia, PD-1996 for the US, with a note about how Russia recognized 50 pma in 1996, when the URAA was enacted); Musopen only holds the copyright for the recording and performance, and thus their license only applies for it. Second, the templates need to be cleaned up. The FAQ in two of them are followed by empty templates, and one of the pages has "Musopen has requested in-line attribution in any article this file is used in. - illegal here!" on it; should be cleaned up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment/research. I've cleaned up these various image pages- they're tidier, consistent and a little more complete, now. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris, for the review. It's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very nice article. A commendable job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, however I have one small concern regarding the use of "darker elements" in the lede paragraph. I am sure that those of us raised as native Anglophones will understand this, but will others from other socio-cultural backgrounds necessarily understand it ? Could we use a less ambiguous term perhaps ? If people disagree with me on this, that is fine, but just thought that I'd raise the point as it was popping up in my mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I would really recommend that the weblinks here are archived, as for instance I did for the Uncle David article. Otherwise there may be a situation in the future where those links have died, and thus text will have to be removed from the article itself, which might potentially threaten its GA/FA rating. I always think that it's better to stay on the safe side in a scenario such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing ! In the reception section, there is a caption stating "Gerald eats his soup Eddie and Ray attempt to enter the house"; this doesn't make much sense as it currently stands so a small revision is probably required. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Midnightblueowl, it's thoroughly appreciated. I've fixed the caption, and will hopefully get to your other comments tomorrow (or, if not, at the weekend- a lot going on). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched "darker" to "more sinister". I think that perhaps loses some of the subtly of the original wording, but I recognise that "dark" is a little euphemistic. I've also archived the majority of URLs. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!

• "Written by Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton, it stars the writers as a pair of hapless burglars attempting to break into the large, modernist house of a couple, played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin, to steal a painting." I feel like this could be rewritten to make it flow better. It seems a tad choppy how it is now (I think it's all the commas). Perhaps input an em dash? "...a couple—played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin—to steal a painting".
  • I've added dashes, as suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Did Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith write the episode "David and Maureen"? It's not clear.
  • I've clarified that they co-wrote and starred in both League of Gentlemen (they co-wrote with others, but "co-wrote" does not imply that they were the only writers) and Psychoville. This logically implies that they co-wrote "David and Maureen". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2015, Shearsmith said that the pair had no intention to do any further silent episodes, as they would not want viewers to think they had run out of ideas". Is this sentence missing a word or did you mean to write it like that? (I could fix it myself but wanted to check first).
  • I've clarified this- good spot. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You include "Both writers agreed it was "great to perform" before establishing that they acted in the episode. Perhaps this belongs in the following paragraph?
  • Good point- I've rejigged the section slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't sound like Chaplin's casting was "coincidental", since one of the writers said it was "almost an accident but maybe a little nod". "Coincidental" seems too strong a word to describe this but I'm not sure what else to use. Hmmm...
  • I've changed it to "her casting was not a deliberate homage", which I think is a little weaker than calling it "coincidental". Do you think this is better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The footnote on the characters' names is awkwardly placed. I almost feel that it would be better to include at the end of production section (as prose, not a footnote). Ruby 2010/2013 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No third-party source thought the point significant enough to mention, so I don't really want it outside of the plot section or in the main body. I have moved it to a less intrusive place; hopefully this is a bit better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I like that you at least moved the note to the end of the sentence, so it doesn't break up the text as much. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your comments! I'll get to these soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again for the review- it's very much appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  My quibbles have been mostly dealt with, so I'm happy to support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

• J. asked me to have a look, so here's a source review.
  • Beyondthejoke.co.uk - Assuming is, indeed, run by Bruce Dessau, this strikes me as meeting SPS (commenting on this explicitly in case anyone takes issue later)
    • Yep- confirmed on The Guardian
  • Is Broadcast italicized or not? You've got it both ways.
    • Fixed, good spot. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "TVP" stand for in The Herald reference? Is it necessary?
    • I'm guessing it stands for something like television page(s). I wasn't sure if it was a supplement rather than the main paper, but, given that it's a Wednesday paper reviewing Wednesday television, I assume not. I'll remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Star: page number, if this is an offline reference? URL if it's online?
    • I've added a Highbeam link. It's not how I accessed it, but it's the same article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd standardize whether or not you archive web references. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times and Broadcast are subscription only, but if the URLs go down, the print sources will remain (they're archived in Nexis, for instance). The Internet Archive won't archive the video on the BBC source, which is what I'm really citing, so an archive wouldn't be helpful. Nonetheless, the BBC, The Times and Broadcast should be pretty secure. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Great, looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.