User talk:Glimmer721/May/2012

Doctor Who reviews

Sorry for the delays - been on holiday and RL things have come up and haven't had much access to the net. For Who reviews from SFX the most useful resource is this: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sfx.co.uk/tv_reviews/* (scroll down) It's an archive from 2005-2006 which re-directs to episode reviews along as there's a corresponding snapshot. I can't get every episode I'm afraid, some won't give me another menu but any link which responds with this screen will state when the first time the article was "crawled". If the date is hyperlinked, and you click on the date you'll get redirected to the review of the episode. There are some good reviews for some series one and two episodes which I haven't had a chance to use. I'll see what I can do with the Who is the Doctor book - I'm using google book preview like I am with The Writer's Tale so it's hard to properly extract information. Eshlare (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it you have the book? :) Some nice edits on related Doctor Who articles. I'm thinking of nominating Adam Mitchell as a Good Article. It's not the most thrilling, informative or most developed of fictional character articles but I think it's fairly comprehensive as as full a representation of the character as possible. Do you reckon it's got a chance? Are HighBeam accounts open to everyone by the way? I've got a few things to expand Rose Tyler with, then hopefully focus on the Ninth Doctor because it's been sitting in my userspace for ages. I saw you left some links there which I can't access.Eshlare (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks Good. Under the current "production" header, I'd say everything from "as the Nestene Consciousness unveils the TARDIS ....introduced a companion)." is trivial. If a reference for information about Eccleston and Piper being first to get title billing can be found, in say Burke and Smith then that could probably be kept in. I'm not eligible for Highbeam, since I've been on wikipedia for less than twelve months, so I'm not able to access articles linked to on that site. I have found a website that has full thirty minute episodes of Confidential, as opposed to the cutdowns, though which may be useful for the Ninth Doctor and related episodes. Do you think you could expand on Eccleston's talks about leaving? The Highbeam source you've quoted from seems like the most authoritative from his POV. Eshlare (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool :) Might be useful in the context of Harriet Jones or Pete Tyler. I was meaning to check in the context of Harriet as I feel she's got as good a chance as Adam at being a GA (Thanks with his article too, GA status at least as much through your contributions as mine), particuarly as I think her characterisation section is more developed in comparison. I've got a mind to submit Rose for GA soon - just needs a bit of tweaking and I need to see if I can get anything good from the Confidential for #1.13 which is a very significant episode not really discussed. I've also got some notes on Ninth Doctor in a notebook - once Rose is at GAN I should steam ahead with that. I was in a "lets write an episode from scratch mood" today.

Thanks for your edits on "Meat"! Very useful. It's easy to miss things. I think I might be able to nominate in for DYK as long as I can get it clearly over the fivefold prose expansion. (I have Torchwood Magazine, stuff from this book and a couple of reviews not yet in there. I'm hoping to be a bit ahead of what's required because I'm not 100% sure on all the sources.) It's the first episode article I've really significantly contributed to and I feel it'll make it less daunting to approach other episodes. If you're wondering on why I put a background section on the plot I saw it at Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) and felt it worked well in the context of this episode, as viewing the article in isolation without a great deal of knowledge probably requires a bit of background knowledge on where things start off at. Would be great if you could let me know if you have any or concerns or suggestions regarding it, seeing as you're experienced at this sort of article. I'm planning on asking another editor or two before inserting it into mainspace (and suggesting it for DYK). Eshlare (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I swear I posted this reply much earlier. Obviously didn't save it. And now I can't remember what I wrote, ha. Good point, not sure about merging it with reception though. Maybe have four lead paragraphs, the current paragraph two becoming one about plot and a small one about production? The Stolen Earth has five, so four shouldn't be a problem. Eshlare (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Source

Thanks for the links! I didn't read the first one because I'm two episodes behind (and haven't watched the finale), but the one about the 20 things was interesting and amusing. Also, I finished all the Matt Smith episodes and am now half way through Christopher Eccleston. Not really a fan of his (although he is getting a little better). Ruby 2010/2013 04:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, did you get that second pdf alright? The service I was using to send the stuff doesn't seem to keep track of sent items to check, but it does take a bloody age to do things so I don't want to fire anything over twice if you already got it. GRAPPLE X 02:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor

I'm finding the Shalka stuff problematic. According to Google, the only reference for him even being known as that is wikipedia itself. Which means that even the name of the Shalka Doctor article isn't verifiable. I've just reached the only conclusion with it I could from the comments from the producer in the McCracken article cited on the Shalka page. I suppose if it confuses people it could always come out as it could be argued that the two characters were always different characters conceptually even though they were both at times given the same number. Have I gotten the gist of the Evening Standard article right? I made that edit from your quotes plus the information from the article abstract. (No Highbeam) What do you think of the companion section?

Think it's just about ready for namespace now. Hoping to get some more characterisation information from confidential that's more plot specific and then jazz up and expand the lead. I'm think also that as the article should be accessible to non-fans it would probably benefit from an overview section (similar to the one already existing) just before the appearances section in which ideas such as "Doctor" (and the character's ability to change face) "companion" "Time Lord" and "TARDIS" are briefly explained and their roles within the narrative given. Thoughts? Eshlare (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually scratch the last part. Best probably just to gloss TARDIS and Timelords in appearances, the concept of changing incarnations in casting, and companion in the companion section. Eshlare (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There's this quote which is post-series announcement (but pre-Eccleston): "Is it part of the canon? I don't know. There's a big argument raging on the message board. I might have to tweak itto state "Following the commissioning of a new series in September the canonical status...." and then use the next para to state Eccleston was unequivocally referred to as the ninth. It's not ideal but I've said "so-called Shalka Doctor" just to cover it being (apparently) his common name if not his official one. I'll ask at WP:WHO if there's anything else. The only place I can see it covered would be a 2004 issue of Doctor Who Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.210.212 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Percy Jackson GAs

Hey Glimmer. I've just nominated the Lost Hero for GA so can you see if you can find someone to review it? I'm about to start on the Last Olympian, and seeing as the PJ tasks force is working on the battle of the labryinth, that would mean that all the pj book articles would be GA :). If you're free can you pitch in with the last Olympian? Thanks. --Kangaroopowah 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Scans

Hello, Glimmer721/May. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.