This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
White Bear (Black Mirror) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
White Bear (Black Mirror) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
White Bear (Black Mirror) is part of the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Writing this here as it's too long to fit in the edit summary.) In this edit, I have changed the summary of the episode's critical reception from "mainly well received" to "very well received". My reasoning is that the majority of reviews have been overwhelmingly positive towards the episode. On the flip side, the Vulture review is wholly negative (but this is one paragraph-long review out of many), some reviews are mixed (but even those in the "mixed feelings" paragraph seem mainly positive e.g. IBTimes), some critics disliked Crichlow's performance/role (but others praised it) and some rankings of BM episodes don't put "White Bear" at the top (but that's specifically about quality relative to the series rather than quality relative to how a critic would normally review an episode). Overall, I think the weight of positive reviews makes "very well received" an accurate description. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The article suggests Brooker was inspired to partially rewrite the episode based on something he saw at a former US Air Force base. One of the references backs this up, but another says it was an RAF base, which makes more sense given that this is a British production. It's possible he was "scouting" at one for inspiration and filmed at the other, but it would be good if we could address this apparent discrepancy. -- BDD ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
What, if anything, belongs in the "See also" section? Are items meant just to reflect editors' own editorial ideas, or is some kind of reliably sourced opinion required? I hear that it's sometimes good practice to add a hidden comment to contentious sections to deter drive-by editors from adding any-old-junk as "coat rack" additions, or to at least make them think before adding. But such measures may be quite pointless, of course. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
there's no point in a "See also" section at all. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Not too sure how to put this, but most of the stuff here misses the point of the script. It is not the switcheroo at the end, amusing though it is. It is that the 'real' audience were entirely happy to behave like the 'White Beared' passive observers. Sheesh. Greglocock ( talk) 03:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, except the “real audience” is very aware this is a tv show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.111.229 ( talk) 04:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
White Bear (Black Mirror) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
White Bear (Black Mirror) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
White Bear (Black Mirror) is part of the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Writing this here as it's too long to fit in the edit summary.) In this edit, I have changed the summary of the episode's critical reception from "mainly well received" to "very well received". My reasoning is that the majority of reviews have been overwhelmingly positive towards the episode. On the flip side, the Vulture review is wholly negative (but this is one paragraph-long review out of many), some reviews are mixed (but even those in the "mixed feelings" paragraph seem mainly positive e.g. IBTimes), some critics disliked Crichlow's performance/role (but others praised it) and some rankings of BM episodes don't put "White Bear" at the top (but that's specifically about quality relative to the series rather than quality relative to how a critic would normally review an episode). Overall, I think the weight of positive reviews makes "very well received" an accurate description. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The article suggests Brooker was inspired to partially rewrite the episode based on something he saw at a former US Air Force base. One of the references backs this up, but another says it was an RAF base, which makes more sense given that this is a British production. It's possible he was "scouting" at one for inspiration and filmed at the other, but it would be good if we could address this apparent discrepancy. -- BDD ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
What, if anything, belongs in the "See also" section? Are items meant just to reflect editors' own editorial ideas, or is some kind of reliably sourced opinion required? I hear that it's sometimes good practice to add a hidden comment to contentious sections to deter drive-by editors from adding any-old-junk as "coat rack" additions, or to at least make them think before adding. But such measures may be quite pointless, of course. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
there's no point in a "See also" section at all. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Not too sure how to put this, but most of the stuff here misses the point of the script. It is not the switcheroo at the end, amusing though it is. It is that the 'real' audience were entirely happy to behave like the 'White Beared' passive observers. Sheesh. Greglocock ( talk) 03:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, except the “real audience” is very aware this is a tv show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.111.229 ( talk) 04:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)