Talk:Boom Town (Doctor Who)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Matty.007 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try and review this, but please bear in mind that this is my first review; please feel free (anyone) to correct me. What I would quite like is, when replying to my comments, if you reply individually to each comment, as I believe is the norm, please sign each fix/comment withthree tildes (~~~), which signs only your name, and means the conversation doesn't get too confusing. Thanks, Mat ty.007 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose quibbles

“time traveller the Doctor”: if 'The Doctor' is his name, should the 'The' be capitalised? I ask this not because I am lazy, but to get your opinion
- We typically have not in the WikiProject. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I wondered. Mat ty.007
“is alive and willing to destroy the planet to ensure her freedom”: is alive? Should this not be removed/moved to plot as it requires previous knowledge?
- Not sure what you mean. I did change it to "recently defeated enemy". Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is alive after what? How about 'survived 'Episode', and willing to destroy...'? Mat ty.007
“Blaine due to her performance in "Aliens of London"/"World War Three" being”: should the episode names be in italics? I suspect that there is some guideline saying not, as the page names aren't in italics, but please could you link me to them?
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style: serials are italicised, episodes are in quotes. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wondered if there was something about that. Mat ty.007
“The actor playing Mr Cleaver, William Thomas, had previously appeared as Martin the undertaker in the 1988 classic series story Remembrance of the Daleks. This made him the first performer to appear in both the original and current run of Doctor Who”: please can you source the first sentence. Can the references to 'Burk and Smith?' be expanded for author, publisher...?
- It's the same source as the next sentence; they don't always have to be repeated, but I did anyway. The publisher and stuff for that reference is found in the Bibliography section at the end of references, as is commonly done with this sort of multiple page number referencing. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is. Mat ty.007
“Davies stated that he originally intended to call this episode "Dining with Monsters". He joked that a much better name for this episode would be "What should we do with Margaret?"”: please can you source the first sentence?
- Same as above; did it anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I can be pedantic at times... Mat ty.007
“Davies intended the episode to be a character piece exploring whether the Doctor had the authority to take someone to their death sentence, as well as showing the consequences of the Doctor's actions the last time he met Margaret, both themes fitting for Eccleston's war-torn Doctor”: perhaps a bit of shortening, and simplifying please?
- Done. Glimmer721 ^talk
  - Thanks. Mat ty.007
“the fact the TARDIS has a psychic link with people was established beforehand so the resolution did not come completely out of nowhere”: simplify please?
- Done. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Mat ty.007
“author Robert Smith? called the episode”: any reason for the question mark?
- here's his website at the University of Ottawa
  - Thank you. Mat ty.007
“describing it as just a "fun romp"”: either remove the 'just', or add it to quotes. Personally, I think a fun romp isn't bad by itself.
- The actual quote is "It's a fun romp. Nothing more than that." "Just" does work as it means "nothing else", but I understand the bad connotation, so I changed it to "nothing more".
  - Still seems like it's dismissing his quote. I changed it a little (and removed a stray 'The'). Mat ty.007
“calling bringing back Margaret a "bad idea"”: um... not in the source given he didn't
- Oops. Fixed to correct word. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Mat ty.007

Miscellaneous

Perhaps 'Production' should be 'Production and casting'?
- Back to the DW MOS above, "Casting" can be a section under production if there's enough info, but otherwise it's part of the production process anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okey-dokes. Mat ty.007
'Broadcast and reception' Needs more than a few reviews, surely some British newspapers have reviews online. Also, I think that the SFX and Radio Times reviews need shortening.
- If they ever did they have been swallowed by changes to the Internet. I'll add The A.V. Club's review when they cover it. Back when the series was new, less sources covered it episode by episode. The size of the section is about normal with older non-event TV episodes (see numerous GAs of The X-Files, etc). RT is essentially just a sentence so I left that, but I shortened SFX a bit. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I originally mistook RT and Digital Spy as the same. Mat ty.007
' Burk and Smith? p. 46': does it have a question mark in?
- Answered above. (Oh don't worry, I am used to this question.)
  - (Do you get this question every GAN?) Mat ty.007
Is 'Outpost Gallifrey' a RS? Is it used in other GAs? (I genuinely don't know this, I'm not trying to be annoying)
- "Fear Her" and "Love & Monsters" are some recent ones, but it and its later Doctor Who News Page are used in several because the website has been cited by other reliable sources who reprint the information, and in the case with Outpost there is a definite author and editor, etc. I think they actually hire people to report for them. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. Mat ty.007
You give years for some past Who episodes mentioned but not others. Is there a reason?
- The historical episodes have dates while the ones mentioned that were produced/aired as part of the same series do not because that would be unnecessary. Remembrance of the Daleks doesn't have it in parentheses because the year was mentioned earlier in the sentence. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Mat ty.007
In SFX, Blaine is stated to be played by Annette Badland. I am reasonably confident that this is a mistake, but is that the only place where Annette Badland is credited? Matty.007 10:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean; the character is Margaret Blaine and the actor is Annette Badland. She is credited at the end of the episode itself, on the official website, and numerous reference sources. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. Well done me for that mistake. Thanks, Mat ty.007
Per Wikipedia:ELMAYBE#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority", "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" should not be external links. I quote SilkTork from a previous GA review he did on Rose (Doctor Who): "At GA level we should not be directing readers to alternative reader generated sites like IMDB and external wikis. If those sites have more information than Wikipedia than this article is by default failing to provide enough information. For an article on a TV episode links to the script or a licensed stream of the video would be acceptable, but not fan sites such as http://www.drwhoguide.com, which offer nothing that can't be put in this article with appropriate research and use of reliable sources". Thanks, Matty.007 19:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh I've never seen that be an issue before as so many articles link to those (I might bring it up on WP:DW because we need to make sure we're following the guidlines). I've removed everything but BBC-licensed sources. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's OK now, it passes my reading of external link policies. Mat ty.007 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	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 editorial 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 media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fixed all my little quibbles

On hold until the issues I have set out are adressed. Best, Mat ty.007 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have replied to everything above. Thanks for the review! Glimmer721 ^talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, passed. Well done! Mat ty.007 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.