A fact from The Devil of Christmas appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about
Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please
join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the
BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the
BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Was the chalet supposed to be Switzerland or Austria? I have a feeling it was meant to be the latter, and our main article gives the setting as Austria. Also, Krampus is is a character from Austrian folklore, so it would make sense.
This is Paul (
talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You're right; my mistake. I've fixed it- thanks!
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"Inside No.9 ITV Player If you weren't permanently put off this series after the rather nasty final couple of minutes of the Christmas special, there is still so much to enjoy in Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton's dark (very dark) comedy, with the first of the new series about the splitting of a bill."[1]
References
^"Television radio picks". i. 18 February 2017. p. 44.
Question about Jessica Raine Image
Is it just me or does the image of Jessica Raine seem rather too large for this article?
Aoba47 (
talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment; it's because it's a tall narrow image. I've made it a little smaller.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't due to something with the way my computer is set up lol. Excellent work with this article as usual.
Aoba47 (
talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Daily Mail
A source used in the article was
tagged as being unreliable. While I of course recognise the Daily Mail as a low-quality source, I observe that 1) the cited article is an interview with the show's creators, so can be read as a primary source; 2) it is used solely for uncontroversial claims about the creation/filming of the episode, and, for the most part, relies upon direct quotes; and 3) As far as the Mail goes, this particular article seems to be fairly standard television journalism, and not sensationalist tabloid nonsense. Given this
context, and given that there is not, and never has been, an outright ban on citing the Mail, I suggest that the citation in this context is appropriate. I am happy to discuss scaling back the use of that particular article if there are concerns about particular claims made.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't use it for BLPs or events-related stuff, but it should be all right in context of talking about a television series.
This is Paul (
talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Production
"the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not
At 497 words, it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like. it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.
", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.
What's the purpose of the pill bottle? Did Kathy poison Julian or throw away his medication?
Threw it away; this is mentioned in passing earlier: "Kathy empties a bottle of tablets".
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.
Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like "Julian learns that the Krampus and Klaus were both roles being played by Kathy's lover, Simon."?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I've reworked these sentences a little.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" pours Champagne" - capital not needed
That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on
Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was unaware of this dispute. Thanks.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Reception
"Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."
I've gone with "For the most part, critics responded extremely positively to "The Devil of Christmas";". Is that an improvement?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"
One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.
A fact from The Devil of Christmas appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about
Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please
join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the
BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the
BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Was the chalet supposed to be Switzerland or Austria? I have a feeling it was meant to be the latter, and our main article gives the setting as Austria. Also, Krampus is is a character from Austrian folklore, so it would make sense.
This is Paul (
talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You're right; my mistake. I've fixed it- thanks!
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"Inside No.9 ITV Player If you weren't permanently put off this series after the rather nasty final couple of minutes of the Christmas special, there is still so much to enjoy in Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton's dark (very dark) comedy, with the first of the new series about the splitting of a bill."[1]
References
^"Television radio picks". i. 18 February 2017. p. 44.
Question about Jessica Raine Image
Is it just me or does the image of Jessica Raine seem rather too large for this article?
Aoba47 (
talk) 17:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment; it's because it's a tall narrow image. I've made it a little smaller.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't due to something with the way my computer is set up lol. Excellent work with this article as usual.
Aoba47 (
talk) 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Daily Mail
A source used in the article was
tagged as being unreliable. While I of course recognise the Daily Mail as a low-quality source, I observe that 1) the cited article is an interview with the show's creators, so can be read as a primary source; 2) it is used solely for uncontroversial claims about the creation/filming of the episode, and, for the most part, relies upon direct quotes; and 3) As far as the Mail goes, this particular article seems to be fairly standard television journalism, and not sensationalist tabloid nonsense. Given this
context, and given that there is not, and never has been, an outright ban on citing the Mail, I suggest that the citation in this context is appropriate. I am happy to discuss scaling back the use of that particular article if there are concerns about particular claims made.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't use it for BLPs or events-related stuff, but it should be all right in context of talking about a television series.
This is Paul (
talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Production
"the BBC had not requested one" I think this would read smoother with the word yet inserted after not
At 497 words, it's a tad too long. I will suggest particular places to trim as I read through, but feel free to start before I get to it if you'd like. it's a bit longer than recommended, but the plot does seem to warrant the extra space.
", in stilted dialogue," - this isn't needed. The detail on the commentary provides a better idea of the scene.
What's the purpose of the pill bottle? Did Kathy poison Julian or throw away his medication?
Threw it away; this is mentioned in passing earlier: "Kathy empties a bottle of tablets".
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I saw that, what I mean is - why did she empty it, and what is the significance of showing it to Julian when he's dying? It seems connected to his heart attack somehow, but there's no clear connection in the current summary.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" is revealed to be Klaus, who is revealed to be Simon" - repetitive. In the interest of simplification, how would you feel about leaving out the Simon part and just referring to the character as Klaus throughout? I don't think anything would be lost.
Well, it's the revelation that "Klaus" is just a character; he tears off a fake moustache and drops the Austrian accent. I do think this is an important part of the plot (the layer upon layer of character that Shearsmith is playing: Klaus, Simon, fake Krampus, actual Krampus, actor) but I am open to suggestions of how to rephrase this.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like "Julian learns that the Krampus and Klaus were both roles being played by Kathy's lover, Simon."?
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I've reworked these sentences a little.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
" pours Champagne" - capital not needed
That's disputable; I note that there is a long-running dispute on
Talk:Champagne about this, as well as plenty of articles a Google away. I followed the current convention on our article on the product.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was unaware of this dispute. Thanks.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 12:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Reception
"Critics generally responded extremely positively" - that's a lot of adverbs. What about "Critics generally gave The Devil of Christmas extremely positive reviews; ..."
I've gone with "For the most part, critics responded extremely positively to "The Devil of Christmas";". Is that an improvement?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"An unsigned review of "The Bill", the second episode of the third series, in i suggested " - I think this would read better as "In i, an unsigned review of the following episode, "The Bill", suggested"
One source was previously challenged as unreliable by another editor, but the nominator provided a detailed and satisfactory explanation on the talk page.