Talk:City of Death/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay I have no problem with that. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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.
- No problem. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	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. 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.