Talk:Planet of the Dead/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a new GA review of this article, per the discussion at the recent reassessment. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

I love this article.  :) :) But then, I appreciate the wholand, so why not. I do have some comments, that probably would fall into section 1, of the writing phase. I could be wrong on this, but I do think the WP:MOS wants us to put punctuation inside the quotes, and footnotes outside, and in standard MOS format, only the colon would go on the outside -- all others would be inside the quotes, except possibly in a few very unusual circumstances. Secondly, I can think of no reason why there would be two end quotation marks, as there is in Broadcast section. Thus the sentence in particular I'm looking at offers several of the MOS points that I mentioned:

Charlie Jane Anders of io9 "mostly loved "Planet Of The Dead"", commenting that it was a standard Russell T Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story":

....mostly loved "Planet of the Dead," commenting that it was a standard Russel T. Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story": etc. This said, such comments are actually quite minor.

Second, the lead is not as well written as the rest of the article and, I think, deserves another edit for clarity. There are a lot of preposition phrases -- sort of a pileup of prepositional phrases, you might say, and these could be clarified so that the lead reads as well as the rest of the article. Just mho.... --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh....and "one-off companion" ... I don't understand what that means. ... One time companion? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"One-off" means, roughly, "one time only"; more often used in British English than in American. Per the MoS, this is perfectly acceptable, especially considering the British origin of the subject. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

GA REVIEW - Pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Why the heck did I fail this article the first time? Excellent job!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well-written in an engaging, but appropriately neutral tone

   B. MoS compliance:

   Compliant. (Note: I made several edits to the copy as I reviewed, in places I felt a touch-up was needed. I am, however, American, and while I attempted to ensure my edits weren't Americanization, I may have made some unintentionally. Please feel free to review and change any edit that Americanizes - any Doctor Who article should be British to the core!)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Excellent array of sources. All appear in order. The BBC, Dr. Who Magazine, podcast commentary, etc.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations used where appropriate (statements regarding production, reviews), and left out where appropriate (plot elements)

   C. No original research:

   None apparent. Article well patrolled by those keeping out uncited original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers all aspects of the episode, from its inception, production and reception, as well as a good summary of the plot.

   B. Focused:

   A bit lengthy for a television episode, IMHO, but not overly so, considering the scope of the production and its importance to the series. All included information is directly relevant to the topic and adds to the coverage.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   All language neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Ah, stability. How I misunderstood thee. Going by how this criterion should be interpreted according to consensus, article is stable, as its major content is agreed upon per the consensus of its primary editors; all reverted edits seem to be generally agreed-upon removals of original research and extraneous detail.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images tagged. Fair use rationales are clear and withstand scrutiny.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images used to illustrate the major colorful points - the desert, other locations, the bus damage, the unusual camera effect, all suitably captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passes with flying colors. I got so wrapped up in the content that I almost forgot I was supposed to be looking with a critical eye! This certainly speaks highly of the editors involved - you have made this a good article.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)