Talk:Galaxy 4/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin my review of this article within the next day or two. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Generally happy with how the article is written; a few points however which I noticed while reading through. There are three Chumbley performers listed, however the same section says that four robots were made for the serial. Just want to double check that this is correct, given the incongruence here. At the start of the "Filming" section we have "focusing"/"focussed" in consecutive sentences; would prefer a substitution of one of these to avoid too much repetition. Regarding the Monica Furlong quote, not entirely sure the meaning of this is clear; understand it's related to The Listener quote preceding it, so is the Daily Mail quote trying to compare the similar endings in the two different shows? Additionally, according to List of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. episodes "The Neptune Affair" was released in 1964, and not 1965 as this article states, and therefore released before this episode, which again raises some questions about the wording of this quote, since I'm not sure if the original review was for Doctor Who or The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and what the comparison was exactly. I would suggest splitting the first paragraph of the "Home media" section into two; I'm not sure how much sense it makes to combine the music/sound effects release and the VHS/DVD release of the surviving episode/telesnap reconstruction into one paragraph here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm seeing no issues with these five areas of MoS within the article. Lead section covers the main aspects of the articles with no noticeable gaps or unsourced info. Plot section is written in a suitable "out-of-universe" perspective. Layout is what I would expect for a subject such as this and I can't see any noticeable words to watch within the article.
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.	All good here.
	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).	No issues with reliability, all sources listed appear to be reputable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	AGF for offline sources; all online sources verify article text.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig comes back with suspected copyvio (78%) with [1]; this primarily covers the wording in the plot section
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good amount of relevant information on characterisation, production, critical response, media release. Happy that the main aspects of the topic are covered in the article. One point to raise would be potentially adding some information around release on streaming platforms (I believe the serial is on Britbox) if this is supported by reliable sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I can't see any tangents or minor information within the article, I believe this is generally quite focussed on the topic and everything included is relevant.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No obvious issues within the article, everything is presented in a generally neutral manner.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here.
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.	All images appropriately tagged with relevant licenses and fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the article and captions are suitable and sourced appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall with this article. A few points above to clear up, but once that's done I'll be happy to pass this for GA. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: Thanks for the review! I've gone through and tried to address your concerns. The Furlong quote was from a review of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. but I've tried to clarify a little. The copyvio definitely appears to be a case of another website copying Wikipedia, specifically an older version of the article. Please let me know if you have any other comments or concerns. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: Thanks for the quick turnaround on the edits! Happy with the copyvio explanation (was kinda leaning towards that resolution myself anyway but always best to check!) and the prose tweaks cover all of the points I raised. After a bit of digging as well my point around the date for the Man from U.N.C.L.E. being before before the Doctor Who episode has become moot, since going by Radio Times listings that episode was first aired in the UK in November 1965, one month after this serial completed, but I appreciate the rewrite around this quote all the same! I'm not happy to pass this article for GA, great job!