# Talk:Fifteen Million Merits

What is the name of the song that's playing at the end of Episode 2, Season 1, please?

Irma Thomas' Anyone Who Knows What Love Is. --88.152.133.64 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that, toward the end, Bing's rise to fame reflects Charlie Brooker's own life. Started off as a ranting outsider complaining about what's wrong with the media, he finds that people like it, and him, for his honesty and insight. 
Since people like him, TV producers notice, and he gets his own show, ranting to order and turning into a bit of a caricature of himself. The symbol of his desperation, the glass shard, is now his greatest possession (although that bit doesn't apply to Charlie I think). The fact that he nearly killed himself with a piece of TV screen is itself important and quite funny.
But anywayyeeah, Charlie's a smart enough bloke to know when he's been co-opted, and that his old fans are gonna spot this just as easily. So he flat out admits it! While also showing us it's kindof difficult not to, that it's the nature of the media, and the fault of the people who watch indentically-packaged garbage. Same thing Dead Set did in a different way.
Perhaps a little mention of the irony of Charlie as Bing is worth putting in for a sentence or two.
188.29.165.176 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, but that Wikipedia isn't quite the place for what you're saying. Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought; everything we write has to be attributed to a reliable source. Unless you can find a review of the episode (or possibly an interview somewhere) which says this explicitly, I'm afraid we can't include it in Wikipedia. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the forest seen at the end real? I always thought it wasn't a window but a screen as well and the forest was just as fake as everything else previously.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.59.143.55 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 

As mentioned in the last paragraph of the Analysis section, this is ambiguous and can be interpreted as real or fake. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Brendan Connolly of Bleeding Cool quoted in this, as though he were somehow a critic anyone pays attention to? He's a minor blogger on a poorly written website, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.103.45 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Webcomic sources#Bleeding Cool. It is a reliable source. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fifteen Million Merits/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. It's not my favourite episode, but I did enjoy it. Only some initial comments now, but I'll be back in due course. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Your lead is a little long, according to MOS:LEADLENGTH.
Yeah, so I understand we're a paragraph over but the paragraphs were each quite short. I've just merged the last two paragraphs because I think they're close enough in topic to go together—"what critics wrote about the episode"—and we're now fitting the letter of MOS:LEADLENGTH. I don't think in terms of word count that the lead was actually too long, and the paragraphs are still sensible lengths; I'd be reluctant to cut any content because then we'd be skimping on or skipping an important section summary, but let me know if there's anything in particular that you feel is too much detail for the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In British English, false titles are considered informal. Could I recommend moving away from them?
Hmm, this is news to me—I didn't realise its history. I've got no strong attachment so I'm happy to move away from it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please double-check my edits - good read so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, your edits so far look good. — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
"would not really be possible" Vague
I've changed the source to Inside Black Mirror, which says more specifically: It was quite a feat, but if we didn't do it, we wouldn't have the time or money in VFX for post production. So I've changed the text to say The sets feature working screens, as using visual effects would have required a larger budget and more time. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"the digital avatars used" Have these been introduced?
Ah, maybe they used to be mentioned in the plot but not currently. These are the "doppels" which one critic mentions later: I've added Digital avatars called "doppels" represented each character on the screens, including in a large Hot Shot audience. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The filming section moves well beyond filming. Production and filming, perhaps? Or just production?
Does "Filming and post-production" work? The word "Production" is redundant to the larger section. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hot Shot or Hot Shots?
Hot Shot singular. Fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"features voices by Tara Lee, McKeon's 16-year-old daughter" Voices or vocals? Also, she's much older than 16 now, according to the wikilink.
Right, I thought the wording was clear enough about Lee being 16yo at the time, but I've specified: Tara Lee, McKeon's daughter aged 16 years old at the time — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there isn't a proper cast list outside of the infobox. I've written a bunch of articles about Inside No. 9 (the slightly less commercial cousin of Black Mirror, perhaps?) and I generally list all cast members in the production section, though other options include a cast section or mentioning every character with a parenthetical credit in the plot section.
Okay, I've mentioned four more characters under "Production" and updated the infobox accordingly. The other cast in the episode are mostly just minor cyclists who have distinct but sort of ineffable personalities, as these scenes are so minimalist with dialogue, and I've restricted it to characters with more obvious character traits. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It's great to see an analysis section packed with such interesting material, but I think it could be a bit smoother; we can tolerate some choppy prose in a GA, but perhaps it could be revisited?
Yeah fair enough, I've had a copyedit of it. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
A pet peeve, but... opining is an ugly word that I have heard/seen next to no one use outside of Wikipedia. "suggesting"? "arguing"? "claiming"?
Replaced. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of duplicate links. No the biggest problem, but something to think on, perhaps. Also, I think the MOS discourages links within direct quotes. Again, I'm not going to lose sleep over it for GAC, but worth being aware of.
MOS:LINKQUOTE says "be conservative" and I try to restrict them to linking products or idioms that might not be understandable to all readers otherwise, but yeah it's best to avoid it if possible. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"In 2012, the episode was nominated in the category Best Production Design at the British Academy Television Craft Awards.[22]" Did it win? Who was the nominee? (I.e., producer, episode...)
Not a win, and I've mentioned the nominees Joel Collins and Daniel May. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"As the second episode of Black Mirror, many reviewers made qualitative comparisons to the first episode "The National Anthem"." Clumsy - the reviewers aren't the second episode!
This one made me laugh, point taken. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
" Lewis critiqued that the moral of the episode "is more sledgehammer than subtle"," I don't think you can use the verb critique like that. The object of critique is the episode, not what was said. I might be wrong. Either way, I think this sentence could be a smoother. Also "though Sims criticised that Bing is "perhaps too inscrutable"" (I actually liked that about Bing, but that's by the by...)
Yes, I suppose this is true. Rephrased. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"but Lambie reviewed Hope as "a little too shrill", along with biker Dustin, and Wollaston regretted that Julia Davis as Judge Charity did not have a larger role" Also struggling with this one... And the whole paragraph beginning "Howard found that Abi's story" could be smoother, I think
Copyedited these sections. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Still need to look at the images and sources more closely, but this is looking decent from a first read-through. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Started addressing some of these; will be back later for the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Alright, I've made a stab at each of these points. Thanks for taking on the review! — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No quibbling about reference formatting (it's not perfect, but this isn't FAC), just a few questions about reliability:

What makes /Film reliable? It's a blog, according to the Wikipedia article
Comingsoon?
Cultbox?
Grantland?
Other than that, happy enough.

Okay, here are why I deemed them suitable for inclusion. I'll note that we're just using them for statements of opinion, no facts, so I think the key criterion here is whether the author is a professional reviewer in some meaningful capacity:
/Film is Rotten Tomatoes approved (the review counts towards their aggregate Tomatometer statistic) and Jacob Hall has also written for New York Daily News and Esquire ([1]). /Film has won some nominations/awards mentioned on its WP article, particularly by Time and PC Magazine.
Comingsoon is similarly Rotten Tomatoes approved and published by CraveOnline, which was at least a decent-sized web conglomerate at the time of the review (2011).
David Lewis has been a reviewer for the San Francisco Chronicle for a few years now (Metacritic-approved), and Cultbox were Rotten Tomatoes approved at the time of the review.
Grantland was owned by ESPN, a big website whose reviewers were definitely professionals; Emily Yoshida specifically has written for a wide range of websites. I see her most often writing for Vulture, but the journalism social media network Muck Rack lists a great many journalism credits she has.
Looking at them again, I'm confident the Grantland source is good, think /Film is decent, still feel like Cultbox is justified and understand that Comingsoon is a lower-quality source. Let me know if you think any need to go. — Bilorv (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The rationale on the lead image is seriously lacking. As I'm sure you realise, there's no presumption in favour of including a screenshot in episode articles, in the way there's (for example) a de facto assumption in favour of album covers on album articles. If one's going to be included, there needs to be a good reason, and that needs to be spelt out in the rationale. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I forgot to check this before nominating. I do think the image is an important one because we do have a fair bit of analysis and reception commentary on the episode's setting and the wall-to-wall screens in Bing's cell are a big part of the episode's feel, as well as (one of) the first idea(s) to inspire the episode. I've added in the infobox the commentary: A key inspiration for the episode was Konnie Huq's remark that her technology-obsessed husband Charlie Brooker would be content in a room which was covered in iPad screens. Let me know if this and the new rationale are enough; I could also try a critic's quote if that would be preferable. — Bilorv (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: just a ping because I forgot before, to check you've seen this. — Bilorv (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy with your responses concerning the sources and the lead image. Maybe if this was at FAC we could lean a bit harder on the sources, but, for GAC for uncontroversial claims, I'm happy. I want to have another read through the article before promoting, but we're surely not far off... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
You should probably provide a reference for the "minor parts" paragraph.
It's got the same source as the plot section: the work itself. No reliable secondary source that verifies all the information in the paragraph exists (at least that I can find). — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Does the episode suggest that the bikes are hooked up to generators, or is that just us putting two and two together? It feels a little odd saying that that viewers may conclude that the bikes are hooked up to nothing without suggesting that they are hooked up to something. But maybe I'm wrong. Just thinking aloud.
Yes, it does. I think the audience assumes it immediately, but there are a couple of lines of dialogue on Hot Shot that imply that the cyclists are at least told that they're generating power: Who do you think is powering that spotlight? Millions of people. That's who. All of them, out there, right now. Putting in an honest day on the bike, while you stand in the light they're generating and dither. and we ride day in day out, going where? Powering what? All tiny cells and tiny screens and bigger cells and bigger screens. I've changed it to: One ending revealed that the exercise bikes were not connected to anything, contrary to the implication that they are generating electricity ... — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph "To inform Kaluuya's portrayal" feels a little all over the place. Again, it's probably not the end of the world for GAC, but perhaps worth visiting if possible.
Yeah you're right. I've had another go at it. — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Stopping there (early train tomorrow...). Please check my edits, and feel free to revert if you're not happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: responded to the comments above and all your recent edits look good. — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
" two real pornographic actresses were hired" Do we have their names? Were they credited? If not, no harm done, but if their names are mentioned in the credits or a source, they should be included here.
Other than that, I'm happy. I've made some further edits that you should double-check, and I have a few thoughts for if you're looking towards FAC, but I think we're where we need to be for GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy with all of your edits. I'm afraid we don't have the actresses names and they're not credited. FAC on this one isn't a short term goal for me, but if the comments aren't too much trouble to type out then definitely leave them on the article's talk or my talk because I might get round to them eventually. — Bilorv (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, promoting now. I think the prose is still quite choppy for FAC purposes. Three examples: 1) Some paragraphs seem to flit from thing to thing without any real internal flow, even if there may be an overarching theme (e.g., "production notes related to x character"). 2) There is a strong reliance on quotes, which results in a "few" sentences that "look like" this, "disrupting" the "flow". 3) Links within quotes, which I know frustrate some people. People are (understandably) tough on RS requirements at FAC, and I'd expect questions to be raised about some of your "bloggier" sources. But, for GAC, I'm more than happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The statement 
"Fifteen Million Merits" placed poorly on many critics' rankings of the 23 instalments of Black Mirror, from best to worst” is not true. 
The article currently states that many critics ranked the show poorly. That’s different from having a poor average score. A minority of critics ranked the episode poorly, which brought the average down. The statement “most critics ranked the episode is above average” is more accurate, yet misleading (due to the average score being below average). That’s why I removed any commentary and just presented the scores. Bpaluzzi (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion and I can see your reasoning a bit better now. The mean average rank is 14/23, which is below average but perhaps not significantly. The highest position it was rated was 9th. Nonetheless, I see your point that half of the rankings placed it in the top half. Perhaps "placed middlingly" would be the most accurate summary? Or we can default to "received various rankings" if no one summary is really accurate enough. The text in the lead, while on critics' lists of Black Mirror episodes by quality, it generally places middling or poorly., will also have to be updated if this text is changed. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)