Talk:Father's Day (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one; as it happens, I watched this episode for the first time about a month ago. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A few initial comments. This looks very solid so far--I'll be back on in an hour or so to try to finish this up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• " leading the adult Rose to eulogize about her father" -- this is a little unclear, and I can't remember exactly how this plays out. Is the adult Rose watching the conversation of young Rose and Jackie? Or is the adult Rose recalling her mother's different version? As a minor grammatical point, I think the standard form is to say just "eulogize her father" (no "about").
  • Yeah that is strange; it's a separate scene with a voice-over of adult Rose (over a picture of her father). I clarified it. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• "the death or Rose's father" -- should this be "death of"?
  • •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest cutting the Grim Reaper image. It seems a little misleading to have it, since a reader may think this is an early production sketch; almost all readers will know what the Grim Reaper looks like in any case.
• It seems worth clarifying here that the Reapers were entirely CGI (or were there any practical effects mixed in)?
  • I worked it in; as seen in Confidential, there were no practical effects aside from markers where the actors were supposed to look. Glimmer721 ^talk
• Why is " Smith?, Robert" written with the question mark? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • •  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

The biggest concern I see here is the note under 2b. On the whole, though, this is excellent work. Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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.	See a few prose quibbles above, but the prose is largely well done and the plot summary coherent.
	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).	I'm not sure that http://www.shannonsullivan.com/ can be considered a reliable source; it appears to be a solo internet project, which means that it would lack editorial oversight and reputation for factcheking. Outpost Gallifrey is probably okay, though, given its reputation as a leading site on the topic.
	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.	The Grim Reaper image seems a little misleading to me; my suggestion would be to remove it, but if we could find a more appropriate caption explaining why we're including this image of the Grim Reaper I could maybe be talked into it.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thanks for reviewing! I will tackle this in the next couple of days. As for Robert Smith?, he explains it here at his University of Ottawa page. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How bizarre... thanks for the link to clear that up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, only two minor points left then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Grim Reaper image since I think there's no issue with having it in the article, license-wise, and it provides a nice contrast to the image above. Should I clarify that it is not a production sketch instead? I am also on the fence about Shannon Sullivan and try to use it for minor things that are supported easily by other sources. He does cite his sources and the website is used heavily in the FA "Doomsday". Glimmer721 ^talk 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If the Sullivan made it through FA as a source, it's good enough for GA; it's not as if it's being used for anything controversial here anyway. There's definitely no problem with the Grim Reaper image license-wise, as you say, but it's a little unclear from the caption what the image is/how it relates to the article--or at least why this particular portrayal was selected to represent the grim reaper image the show's creators were imagining. I myself clicked on the image history to make sure it was just a random Grim Reaper drawing and not something actually related to the show. Perhaps you could add a parenthetical saying something like "Pictured: an artist's representation of a Grim Reaper"--does that make sense to you? Thanks for all the fixes! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that was along the lines of what I was thinking of putting in the caption. I've done it now. Thanks for reviewing! Glimmer721 ^talk 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)