# Talk:USS Callister

Good job placing a "fuck white people" article in the analysis, this is what Wikipedia users need, self-flagellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.179.100.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Franz biberkopf has just removed a significant portion of the existing Analysis section – seemingly, the content that discusses Daly's race and gender and how it impacts on the episode, along with the episode's relation to Star Trek. I think technically I could claim exemption under exception #4 of 3RR and just revert it (removal of sourced content with no edit summary seems like pretty clear vandalism to me), but I'll refrain. As a white male myself, certainly my intention is not to disparage any white males; I was merely summarising the comments of reviewers. I think in fairness, "Daly fits a common archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life" is a bit much, and I was trying to work out how to rephrase it – but on the other hand, it seems like a fair assessment of this critics' opinion. The other parts of the section were corroborated by numerous reviewers, and doubtless there are many more similar reliable sources out there making the same point about the gender and race politics of the episode.
Could another uninvolved editor come and see what should be done of content from the version of the Analysis section I wrote – whether it should remain removed, be added back or be rephrased? If it's either of the last two, semi-protection may also be necessary for a few days. Pinging @Radiphus and Somethingwickedly as active editors in this area who have edited this article (though anyone is very welcome to add to the discussion). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed this edit (warning: page has "Arkangel" spoilers) by the same editor who blanked Analysis content here – they may be a single-purpose account with a non-neutral gender agenda (pun intended). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides on the race and gender issue, but you have no "exemption" for WP:3RR. Such self-bestowed exemptions usually result in a block. Get consensus before reverting again. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fair, and the reason I started this discussion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't care at all that you're a white guy and you shouldn't care yourself. I very much hate when people say as a white guy or as a woman or as a gay dude. So what? That makes your opinion higher in caliber than mine just because you're gay, black, or white. Just care about being an editor because that's what you enjoy. You shouldn't make what you are who you are and you shouldn't disparage people just for being "white". That's what I hate about those articles as they very much "screw white guy" articles while putting ideologies and politics on something where it doesn't exist. They take the enjoyment out of everything. Just think if you said "black male's abuse of authority" that would be considered racist(which it is), but when replaced with "white male" it fine(though it is racist too). It shouldn't be fine on any account white, black, etc. I guess it would be fine if Charlie Brooker said that was the message of the episode, while I would very much disagree with it, I would still put it on the page because that is what it's about regardless. 
I mean if the analysis were well-versed and put together, I would respect that. However, all those analyses come from "journalists" who try to put "mansplaining" on a Better Call Saul episode or Thomas the Tank Engine "fascist", which I very much hate those terms like "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege" as they're very much sexist and racist terms (though surprisingly excepted) and it takes the fun out of everything. They're not analysis, they're ideological rants. They're like "modern game journalists". Even worse, when people see the "fuck white people" analysis they're going to think that was the writer's true intention which is perhaps wasn't and people will say "oh the writers of this show are anti-white and anti-male". I'm very tired of hearing politics, gender, and race all the time on something that just wanted tell a story but got caught with progressives or modern feminists or SJWs. I'm just tired of seeing those words all the time these days on articles. Though, I'm probably just wasting my time here.
Though, I guess I should have been a bit more apprehensive on the Arkangel edit as I just don't care about what directed it (first[blank] to make something I don't care about what you are, I just care about what you made.) which is why I made the change, though I guess I should have been more thorough. I'll do better next time.
- Franz Biberkopf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz biberkopf (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Radiphus: I see you've re-added some but not all of the content. What's your opinion on this? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to the phrase "psychological traits associated with rape culture", am i right? First of all, i want to say that i do not believe this episode was about racism or sexism at all, but this is my personal point of view. In Vulture's review we read: though there’s a romantic dimension to the Callister simulation, Robert never rapes the female voyagers; in a moment both hilarious and profoundly disturbing, Simpson reveals that they all have Barbie-doll-esque blank surfaces where their genitals should be. Still, the psychological foundation that has manifested in rape culture — the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness — is all right there. I believe the phrase "it's all right there" is too simplistic, and not justified in the review. In particular, it is not explained how Daly treats the women of the crew differently than the men. Especially, compared to the extent that the "white male nerd" subject is covered in other reviews. MOS:TVRECEPTION states that vague and non-descriptive claims should be avoided and if a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. In the closing paragraph of Telegraph's review we read: the script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke, though as the #metoo campaign grows, it couldn’t feel more timely. Cole’s victory over her creepy boss in the high-fiving finale might not feel very Black Mirror, but it’s the kind of story it would be good to hear more often, and this is the first mention to this subject in the review. Once again, it's not explained how the narrative of an attractive younger woman who falls for the "nice guy" is associated with sexual scandals and rape culture. -- Radiphus 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There's actually a bit more as well. Here are the exact parts that were removed and never added back:
One reviewer describes "USS Callister" as critical of sexism in ''Star Trek'' and its fandom,<ref name="inverse"/> though Brooker says that "I don't want it to be seen that we're attacking fans of classic sci-fi".<ref name="dog interview"/>
Daly is a man who abuses his position of power, leading one critic to call the episode "a sharp attack on an entire genre of male-driven narrative".<ref name="telegraph"/>
The episode begins with the Hollywood trope of a socially awkward man meeting a younger woman who appreciates his intelligence. Viewers initially side with Daly, but instead of the pair falling in love, we learn of Daly's true nature.<ref name="telegraph"/> (difference from current bolded; also sentences restructured but that's minor)
Though the episode was written before the [[Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations|Weinstein scandal]] and [[Me Too (hashtag)|#metoo campaign]], the episode is evocative of it,<ref name="telegraph"/> with Daly exhibiting psychological traits associated with [[rape culture]] and white male nerd entitlement.<ref name="vulture"/><ref name="avclub"/><ref name="vox"/>
Similar to an internet bully, Daly does not seem to care about the pain he is inflicting to the virtual clones,<ref name="dog"/> treating them as action figures.<ref name="vulture"/>
Take another look at this diff for the exact removal.
First of all, I commend you for making those edits despite personal disagreement; that shows a genuine respect for NPOV and other Wikipedia guidelines. As it happens, my opinion is that gender and to a lesser extent race are a key part of the episode – I did pay particular close attention to this content as I thought it might be challenged, and don't want my personal view to come across in the article.
So I think #1-3 and #5 are completely uncontroversial, with the authors and Brooker explaining their opinions fully (tell me if you disagree though). With the Vulture review, I think each of his female compatriots rewards him with a chaste close-mouthed kiss contributes to the explanation, and part of the quote you pasted (the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness) is also an explanation of why the reviewer thinks it is related to rape culture. It looks to me like MOS:TVRECEPTION is a very low threshold – Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. – and the reviewer's opinion seems clear to me (they like the episode because of the moral about rape culture that they perceive to be there; they give three examples of traits allegedly shared by Daly and rape culture perpetrators). The rest of the sentence is "white male nerd entitlement", based on quotes "a particular kind of male nerd entitlement" and "even its depiction of white guy nerds’ toxic sense of entitlement". For the Telegraph, we have It's not just Daly who's creating an sexist fantasy: half of Hollywood is, which I think links the two things very overtly. Daly created a sexist fantasy in the same way that Weinstein did, along with other sexual harassers that are the subject of #metoo, at least according to the reviewer. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Yes, i missed some of these sentences. As i said, i disagree that the episode was about sexism (kisses with no tongues, no genitals, hesitant to get in the water with a sexy half-naked girl, etc. - Daly was just living in a fantasy world), but i do not disagree with including any of these reviews, as long as it is made clear that interpretive statements represent a reviewer's personal opinion (like i did with the white male archetype by saying "critics have noted"), similarly to the "reception" section. -- Radiphus 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the Weinstein reference is one of the more pertinent points explored in the section, and I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere, but maybe not. However, I haven't watched all the episodes yet as I'm trying to avoid a lot of reviews generally, so if this needs to be left out for the time being I will wait. I do agree with Bilorv on the other points though. I'm not sure how why you can't see the sexism angle, but there you go, at least you have made an active contribution to this discussion. I hope Franz biberkopf makes use of the edit summary in future (especially when making large removals), so other users can understand why he is making them; it makes things a lot easier for everyone from all sides of the debate. Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Just found this article, which is almost solely about Weinstein comparisons. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 02:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I do have concerns that while the comparisons to Weinstein, etc are all well-sourced and fully belong in the article, there's a bit of coat-racking to stick it in the lede. Abuse of authority, no problem, and even "male abuse of authority" could be argued as lede material, since there's also discussion of the misogynistic nature of the original Star Trek, etc. I think though the introduction of the Weinstein in the lede is a problem particular since given the timing (Weinstein in Oct 2017), there was no way that Brooker could have used that as influence for this episode. --Masem (t) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, both critics in question freely say this ("The script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke", "seem to freakishly mirror") and I thought the article made that fairly clear that it's just a comparison (under production, we have the details that it was written in November 2016 and filmed in January 2017). I thought it was fair to give it 1/3 of a sentence (really just 3 words) in the lead as this comparison has been corroborated between two reviewers, and the latter spends essentially their entire article on the comparison. I don't think this is out of place – take how Nosedive mentions in the lead two real life comparisons that have been drawn to things that did not exist when the episode was written, and the fact this material is contentious should be no different. If it was unclear that these were comparisons and not inspirations, feel free to reword or add something like "though the episode was written in November 2016, before the Weinstein scandal broke" (though I fear that would be a bit lengthy and undue.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've reworded it already. I think the lead is fine like that – the provenance is now very overt. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think my changes address concerns without eliminating it. I did a few more tweaks in the lede for it (noting "recent" controversies with these) --Masem (t) 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused – what are the "recent controversies" involving internet bullies. Gamergate? That seems like OR as I haven't seen it mentioned in any reviews (bar the throwaway Easter egg link "that community has had some problems" from [1]). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "controversies" isn't the right word. I changed it to "events". --Masem (t) 18:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The reviwers are all culture warriors who are pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the episode neutrally. Go look at their histories. There's no substance to any of their critiques. 67.248.239.224 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this, and every episode of Black Mirror should definitely have some politics about the color of skin shoe-horned in. There definitely can't be any meaning besides color of skin that I like I like is good, color of skin I don't like is bad. Hooray. I'm glad that what I read online is of lower quality and insight than the Sneetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:1154:500:55b6:38c8:3f06:2d7f (talk • contribs) 

I do have my own opinions of how the media does seem to be focused on the anti-"white male" stories of late, but unfortunately, regardless of that, to ignore the number of RSes saying that now in regards to this episode is not appropriate per WP:UNDUE. It's not a "fringe' view for this episode. I think they're trying to project too much but as long as we apply attribution to who said it, then we're not saying it ourselves in WP's voice. --Masem (t) 03:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the "TrekMovie" review entered by "Captcha47" may not be made in good faith. This is the only edit that "Captcha47" seems to have made to Wikipedia, and the review may have been included in order to direct traffic to the TrekMovie site, especially given its click-baity negative review. I know there's a policy against self-promotion, but how are pseudonymous accounts addressed in this respect? (In other words, do we know that Jared Whitley or an associate didn't add these multiple references to that review themselves?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepazu (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 

This is pretty much the reason why i said in my edit summary that this might not be a reliable source to include in the article. -- Radiphus 20:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the original motive of the person who added it (I'll add POV-pushing as a possibility), I looked at the review and reworded the content we have in the article sourced to it (I'm definitely not an SPA; never heard of the website before) – and really we should assume good faith of Captcha47 anyway. So the question should now be: is this a reliable source? The TrekMovie review was written by a staff member i.e. someone paid to write a review of this episode, and the website seems reasonable significant, albeit with a nice target audience (see TrekMovie); in my view this is enough for the reviewer to be a reliable source for their own opinion / quoted in the Wikipedia article. My bar for reliable sources on critics' reviews is probably quite low though – if there's consensus that this isn't a reliable source, we can remove it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I looked again at the article, and while I can't dispute that the review is reliable by the standards you mention, it's notable that the reactions of that site's audience to the review seemed overwhelmingly negative, perhaps indicating that this review is not representative of a widely held viewpoint. With that in mind, I reduced the length and prominence of the review summary in the article, appending it to the other "mixed reviews". The review is still mentioned twice in the article, which I propose is sufficient to represent that viewpoint and to provide enough information for others to seek it out, without lending it undue significance. I don't think it's necessary to remove the review entirely. Thanks. Shepazu (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some opinions are a higher caliber than others... duh.  Like how you're doctor's opinion of that weird mole is more valuable than your friend's.  I believe to be relevant to a wikipedia article, the critiques have to be from a formal source with formal standards.  Therefore, blogs without edited or formally distributed content such as "trek movie" should not be included and treated akin to original research.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.133.251 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 

I want to know if SOMA is worth being mentioned here - it's also a science fiction media property that explores the teletransportation paradox as a driving force in its plot, making it and this Black Mirror episode the only popular pieces of recent fiction that address the "personalities being duplicated exactly while the original personality still exists" concept in this kind of detail. --Tutwater (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, you linked to a disambiguation page. Please be more specific. But more importantly, you need to find a good source that talks about this. If you yourself came up with the connection, please don't edit the article. To know why, read up on WP:OR. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Plot" section currently states: "Walton repairs the thrusters manually, deathlessly incinerating himself, and the ship accelerates into the wormhole." How come it is "deathless" if Walton screams horrifically upon being burned, and he's never seen again for the remainder of the episode? Even when the crew passes the wormhole and is de-Spacefleetified, the only two people who return are Shania and Valdack, not Walton. Ericobnn (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cole: Is there any way that we can fix the engines?Dudani: That's only feasible manually, by climbing inside the jet fader.Cole: So?Packer: So you'd burn to a crisp when the jet came on.Dudani: We'd burn without dying."Burn without dying" and "deathlessly incinerating himself" is the same. If we did't mention that, we would be implying that Walton actually died while fixing the engines, which constitutes original research. -- Radiphus 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Lem story Non Serviam could very well have served as source material. It is one of the chapters of "A Perfect Vaccum" discussed here. Perhaps somebody knows more about this? 137.205.100.8 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the work, but Brooker has not mentioned this in interviews, and nor has any critic I can find compared the two works. Thus, it would be original research to mention it in this article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Callister/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

This is a single episode of a not-popular show that was played on an pay TV service most people cannot even watch.
Why is this here? 
74.88.70.77 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Our guideline for notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". The article has 79 sources, which is an order of magnitude more than necessary to demonstrate notability. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedical has changed the occurrences of the episode title "USS Callister" to "USS Callister", while keeping starship mentions to USS Callister. It's not obvious to me which is correct at first glance—Wikipedical, can you explain fully why you think the latter is right? I understand that sometimes there are title-eponym distinctions (e.g. a film about Jane called Jane italicises title mentions but not character mentions) but why should that be the case here? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I can help answer this. As a single episode, the work is "short form". Like a poem in a collection, or a chapter in a book, or an article in a journal, this means that it gets its title in quotations, rather than in italics like long form works (the collection, the book, the journal, the TV show). The name of the ship is, per standard US conventions, in italics. I undid the edits myself because I had checked the episode title when doing my GA review of the page, and it appeared in source like TV reviews, TV Tropes, the Black Mirror wiki, and on articles attached to Netflix and IMDb that the episode title is, in fact, "USS Callister". Or, the name of the ship is equal to the episode title. The title is not in italics, it is in quotations, but the title itself features italics as a stylistic choice.
This is my understanding, I'm sure Wikipedical will also respond. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW "Inside Black Mirror" uses full italics on all episode names  with this one being all italics. --Masem (t) 04:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is something I've noticed too. The book also makes it clear that the creators call the episodes "films" and consider them to be (short) films in style. But as we on Wikipedia consider them episodes—and this is something I think we need to continue doing (the individual component of any programme is an episode)—we need to use quotes rather than italics. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 07:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey all.  Thanks for opening this discussion- this episode title turned out to be an interesting case.  Titles of television episodes (and other minor works) are enclosed in quotation marks on Wikipedia, per MOS:MINORWORK.  Even if an italicized work (or ship per WP:NC-SHIP) is in the title of the episode, the title uses quotation marks to indicate the article's subject.  Speaking of the USS Enterprise, an example that comes to mind is "Yesterday's Enterprise." The ships titled Enterprise are italicized throughout the article, but the title itself is unitalicized with quotation marks.  In our case, the quotation marks indicate to the reader that the subject of the article is the Black Mirror television episode, not the fictional ship the USS Callister.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, Yesterday's Enterprise is a very good article to pick as precedent. I'm convinced. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're interested in precedents, maybe it’s not so open and shut. What about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"? Yeah it's a song title but don't they follow the same formatting? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Critic Alec Bojalad claims that Daly fits an archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life and a sense of entitlement.[43]"
Legit racism, doesn't belong.
"Dana Schwartz links this to the "modern toxic masculinity" movements of Gamergate and the alt-right.[16] "
sexist rhetoric with poor handwaving conflating two different things.
Charles Bramesco of Vulture notes that despite the fact that Robert never actually rapes any of the female members of the crew, he exhibits psychological traits associated with rape culture.[47]"
Rape culture? Absolute scientific woo, what are these traits, why aren't they mentionable and sourced in an encyclopedia.
Basically, there's too much fat in this section and trimming the bigotry would help a LOT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 

This is what critics have written about, we can't change their stance on it. --Masem (t) 02:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid we don't censor views that make us personally upset, but instead summarise what reliable sources say. As for what are these traits, Wikipedia is a summary of sources and the  that you copy contains a link that answers your question i.e. the source that you asked for. — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is the cast list? They have been standard for a very long time. Surely millions of people come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of quickly finding out who plays what part. Instead we have a "Casting" section, which is a poor substitute for a list. 174.6.135.25 (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We categorise Black Mirror as a television series, and cast lists are typically reserved for films. For television the standard is either to elide actor names or to introduce them in parentheticals in the plot summary (as is done here). — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I know I've seen cast lists for TV shows, although it may have been main cast and repeating characters only. Putting cast names in parentheses for episodes makes sense when multiple episodes are listed on a page, but when an episode merits a page of it's own a cast list would seem to be fitting. A change to the standard would be preferable, but an explanation makes things easier to understand and live with. Thanks. 2604:3D08:7283:A800:9985:5423:8C8:55B1 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
We do cast lists for TV shows for the main show page and typically for seasons, but not episodes. That said, that approach doesn't work well for anthology works where there is no consistent case across episodes (comparable to Twilight Zone or Amazing Stories). Perhaps that's a discussion for WT:TV to consider that scenario. Masem (t) 12:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it needs to be on a case-by-case basis for each show. In my view, a good cast list describes a character's important traits succinctly with reference to reliable sources. The infobox is where you find a list of each actor and the character they played without commentary.What would we say about each character in a Black Mirror episode? Well, in early episodes like "Fifteen Million Merits" we'd lack the sources to make commentary on all but the two or three most major characters, and such commentary might fit better alongside more contested interpretation (like "Bing is a representation of Brooker") that needs prose attribution in "Analysis". In short or plot-driven episodes like "Metalhead" there's little to say that doesn't repeat the plot. In some episodes a well-considered "Characters" section could add value, but isn't consistency across episodes a desirable feature? — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
And to that for BM specifically, there is nearly always a Casting section or potential for one under the production/development details, which is a well suited way to handle both large and small casts. Just that this should suggest that for cast members not called out as part of casting sources, that they should be documented for sake of completion. But we also have the infobox list too. Masem (t) 17:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)