Talk:City of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Hitchhiker's references?[edit]

Hold the phone a minute. I've watched the DVD, the notes and the commentaries, and all of the documentaries on the second disc, and neither heard nor saw ANY Hitchhiker's references in THIS Doctor Who story (though The Pirate Planet had several). Anyone have proof? --JohnDBuell 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Part 3 cliffhanger[edit]

What happened to Part 3's cliffhanger (Kerensky's death)? --Jawr256 09:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Lalla[edit]

I've heard it mentioned that the real-life relationship between Tom Baker and Lalla Ward (which led to their brief marriage after both left the series) originated during production of this serial. Can anyone provide a source for this, as it would be interesting to note in the article. 23skidoo 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Felt tip pens[edit]

They seemed to put some emphasis on the fact that "THIS iS A FAKE" was written in felt-tip, especially at the end, it seemed to me. Is there something special about felt-tipped pens, that they are modern of they show up on x-rays or something? --Howdybob 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer- It's not so much that the pen used is felt tipped, as it would be the ink used in the pen. The chemical composition of modern inks is very different from those used in the 16th Century.

All Good References[edit]

Is the reference to the Star Trek episode really relevant? Lots of stories resemble lots of other stories. Lots42 (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

I agree with the tagline. These plot synopses are way too long. Who's going to read all of that? Surely it would be better just as a single paragraph? According to Wikipedia:Plot summaries, the plot summary should be between 200 and 500 words - this one is over 2000! --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. The main reason these long plot summaries remain is that nobody ever gets around to writing more succinct ones. It's like the old aphorism "I am sorry that this letter is so long — I have not had time to make it shorter." (Who said that?)
That said, Wikipedia:Plot summaries is an essay, not a guideline, and as such the 300–500 word estimate is only a recommendation. If you, or someone else, wanted to condense this plot summary (which I agree is far too long), but found that you needed, say, 800 words to do so, that would not be a big problem in my view. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was tempted to do so, but knowing how people jump on these Doctor Who articles, I figured that I'd get pounced on and my work would be reverted. Still, we'll see. (Who said that? Pascal, Twain, Cicero and a host of others apparently - but I did look for it!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. It still seems quite detailed at 800 words, but still, that's less than half what it was.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim Bread's whimsy[edit]

Cleese wanted them to be credited as "Helen Swanetsky" and "Kim Bread" but the BBC declined, failing to see the joke.

Perhaps someone who does see the joke could put me out of my misery? —Tamfang (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Have explained. It's doesn't seem to be much of a joke. Glimmer721 talk 17:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:City of Death/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one--sorry you've had to wait so long for a review on it! Comments to follow today or tomorrow, Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see this is available on Netflix, so I've gone ahead and ordered myself a copy to watch it first. So it may be a week or so before I post the review if that's all right. If for any reason you're in a hurry, though, I can simply withdraw and return this to the queue with the same date stamp. In either case, thanks in advance for your work here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope no hurry. I just cleaned up this article and polished it; a lot of the info has been here for a while from various editors, which is why I said it was nominated on behalf of the WikiProject. You will probably have a really fun time watching it! Glimmer721 talk 03:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. Still going to be a few more days, unfortunately, till I get my greedy hands on this one, but you'll be my first priority after that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So far so good! I'm stepping away from the keyboard for now but hope to finish later tonight.

  • This isn't really a GA issue, but it's odd to click on a link for the Sephiroth race and end up at Sephirot. It's probably better to delink this per WP:EGG (i.e., no Easter egg links). -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't say I'm up on all the terminology, but could you please explain because I don't quite understand how it is an Easter Egg link per that page. Thanks. Glimmer721 talk 02:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the link is for the Sephiroth race, so you click it expecting to find an article about alien beings like Daleks, but instead end up at a concept from the Kabbalah. If the idea here is that the writer was inspired by the Kabbalah to create this fictional race, this should just be cited and explained in text. I removed the link for now, but if you disagree for any reason, feel free to revert; it's not an important point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay I have no problem with that. Glimmer721 talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "the largest audience ever recorded for an episode of Doctor Who" -- does this still hold true today? This probably needs an "as of" or "at the time" or some such. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's actually still true, in terms of viewers in the UK both live and with time-shifted (DVR viewed within 7 days) added, which has been done for the new series. Granted now there's the Internet and overseas now (and no doubt the new series reaches a larger audience nowadays), so I clarified it as "UK television". Glimmer721 talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "City of Death, like most Douglas Adams material is overrated" -- I added a comma after "material" here to clean up a grammatically error. Even if this error appears in the original, MOS:QUOTE allows trivial corrections to be made without a "sic"
    • Okay no problem there. Glimmer721 talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I added a bit more from io9's list of the top 10 episodes ever if you have no objections; it's a bold statement, so I was curious enough to click through.
  • "a directors/actors' commentary" -- should this be "director's" (i.e., only one director)? Or did others comment?
  • It's the director and two actors (but not the two main actors), so I just went ahead and listed them. Feel free to reword the sentence if it now seems too long. Glimmer721 talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as you can see from my short list, this one seems to be in a great shape. I've done a bit of hands on work myself, but none of it is strictly necessary for GA, so please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and does a remarkably good job discussing the episode's legacy and changing critical reactions. I'm glad to have been the reviewer for this one, and I particularly appreciate your indulging my delay in seeking out the episode to watch first.

So there's the two clarity points above--the largest audience stat, and the directors commentary. I'll do the checklist now to see if I turn up any more issues, but this seems otherwise ready to pass. Thanks again for your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem; it's worth watching! There was already a lot of info here but no one had carried it through GA, so this is very much an accomplishment of the WiiProject. Glimmer721 talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright problems. One minor clarity/grammar point above.

{{GATable/item|1b|?|Clarify "largest audience" statement above for WP:REALTIME (part of [[WP:WTW}}) }}

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

DYK?[edit]

Is anyone planning on nominating this for DYK in time for the 50th anniversary? Ruby 2010/2013 15:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's possible since it is not in any way a new article or a recently expanded one...there will be an FA of the Day though on November 23rd. Glimmer721 talk 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked into it... WP:WIADYK allows "DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been ... promoted to good article status" which was added very recently, although the RfC about it was some weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, new GAs have become eligible. I'm fine nominating it later today if no one is opposed. (just wanted to check with the article's principal authors first). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 16:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, now we need a hook etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
How about: ... that Douglas Adams convinced John Cleese to appear in the Doctor Who serial City of Death after learning the comedian would be working in BBC Television Centre on the same day of filming? Ruby 2010/2013 17:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
With no one evidently opposed, I have nominated the article for DYK here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)