Talk:The Time Meddler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article. The Chase, the preceding serial in the series, was reviewed as part of the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, and it will be interesting the compare them. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Assessment

• The article was created on 2 May 2005 but rewritten and expanded on 18 January 2022.
• is rated a C class.
• The article is of reasonable size with 3,092 words of readable prose.
• The lead is of appropriate length at 384 words.
• Suggest replacing "The Monk reveals his plan to destroy the Viking fleet, preventing the Battle of Stamford Bridge and leave the Saxon soldiers completely fresh to defeat William of Normandy at the Battle of Hastings." with "The Monk reveals his plan to destroy the Viking fleet, which is to prevent the Battle of Stamford Bridge and leave the Saxon soldiers completely fresh to defeat William of Normandy at the Battle of Hastings." or something similar.
• Correct the spelling of "broadcsat".
• Possibly replace "Tosh enjoyed Spooner's idea to blend historical and futuristic stories" with "Tosh enjoyed Spooner's idea of blending historical and futuristic stories".
• Please look at "Due to the limited expenses". Is there a clearer way of saying this?
• Can you please look at this phrase "Steve Roberts convinced Teresa Griffiths to allow him to restore Time Time Meddler to represent its original era" and correct the errors.
• There are no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
• It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
• The Paul Smith book is lacking an ISBN or OCLC number.
• Citations seem comprehensive and from reliable sources.
• There is no evidence of original research.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector detects 9.1% copywrite violation, which means that it is unlikely to have a problem.
• Coverage is focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
• The topic is covered with a neutral point of view.
• The article is stable and free of editwarring. 74.1% authored by Rhain with over 90 other editors also listed as contributing lesser amounts.
• Images are either CC or under fair use, and are appropriately tagged.
• Images have appropriate captions. I recommend adding ALT tags, even though this in not a GA criteria, to the images in the text (the image in the Infobox already has the tag).

@Rhain: Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thanks for the review! I've gone through and addressed your concerns. My only note is that Smith's book doesn't actually have an ISBN, unfortunately; it was published for free online. Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain ☔ 13:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhain: Great work on the amendments. Unfortunately, I think means that Smith is not a reliable source. Can you replace it with an alternative that has credibility? simongraham (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Smith is reliable; he has several published books on the topic. The only reason this one lacks an ISBN is because it's (currently) published solely online. The information itself within the book is compiled from several reliable sources, including the original Target novelisations. – Rhain ☔ 23:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhain: Wonderful Books is Smith's own imprint and the book is self-published not simply only available online. WP:SELFPUBLISH allows self-published items in certain cases but they are "largely not acceptable as sources". According to WP:USINGSPS, "Self-published works should be examined carefully in determining whether a specific self-published work is a reliable source for a particular claim in a Wikipedia article." For GA, the criteria for reliable sources is higher than for a C class article and self-published references should be replaced by verified sources. As WP:SELFPUBLISH states, "If the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." The nonfiction literature produced around the series is extensive, including books written about the Hartnell years, programme guides and numerous studies. I suggest using one of those. simongraham (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Done. – Rhain ☔ 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhain: Excellent work. Thank you. This article now meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)