Jump to content

Talk:Enlightenment (Doctor Who)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this is looking good. I'm placing on hold for the moment, but my main concerns are over the length of the plot section, and one or two sourcing issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for reviewing (after all this time lol). I'm a bit busy with work at the moment but will look at the issues raised over the course of this week and should have it finished by next Sunday. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues addressed I believe. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Turlough, whom the Black Guardian (Valentine Dyall) had ordered to kill the Doctor, struggles with this assignment": What assignment? The race? His mission to kill the Doctor?
  • "In addition to Dyall, Englightenment also guest stars Keith Barron and Lynda Baron." Sounds clumsy. Do we need these guest stars in the lead? If so, I would rephrase as simply "Keith Barron and Lynda Baron also appeared in the serial." (or "also appear" if that is the convention on television articles)
    • I would remove the mention of both "guest" and "star". The biilings in the Radio Times (which are easily checked, since PDF scans of these are included on Disc One of BBCDVD 2596C) show "starring Peter Davison"; everybody else (Mark Strickson, Janet Fielding, Cyril Luckham, Valentine Dyall, etc.) are simply listed among the ordinary cast. The programme's on-screen credits do not use "starring" at all (not even for Peter Davison), let alone "guest". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production of Enlightenment was beset by problems": Redundancy?
  • "The serial was eventually finished": Maybe better as "It was…" to avoid repetition.
  • "meaning that several characters had to be recast at short notice when the original actors were unavailable for new filming dates": A little clumsy. Maybe (new sentence) "The unavailability of several actors for new filming dates forced the production team to recast their parts at short notice."
  • "was watched by an average of 6.8 million viewers": Not clear in this context how you can have an average number of viewers. I assume this is an average across the four episodes, but modern readers may assume it is the average number across the timeslot.
  • "received generally positive reviews from critics. Critics have noted": Try to avoid "critics. Critics…"
  • "and was subsequently released": I don't think we need "subsequently" here.

Plot:

  • I think this section is far, far too long. It is 1,341 words. The whole article is only 4,397 words, which makes the plot section (not including continuity) around 30% of the total article. This seems very unbalanced, and I don't think I can pass it like this. I would recommend cutting this section by at least a half. I have had similar issues over TV shows, where the plot section is too long. A quick look at some TV FAs may help to get the balance right.
  • I don't quite understand the need for a "continuity" section. I've reviewed a few Dr Who GAs before, and they have not included this. My understanding is that it is not a project requirement. Other TV shows do not have this, and it seems rather too specialised for a general encyclopaedia. My preference would be to cut it completely, although I am prepared to discuss that. The first paragraph could be used as a background section to the plot or moved to "conception and writing". The rest of it looks like it belongs in an article on the eternals, not on this story.

Production:

Themes:

Broadcast:

  • Minor point, and feel free to ignore this one, but why are the same two references used for each of the four episodes? Why not just the two references used once for the whole table?
    • Most articles on DW stories of the 1963-89 period use {{Doctor Who episode head}} wrapped around several instances of {{Doctor Who episode body}}, see for example the preceding story, Terminus or the following story, The King's Demons, where all the refs are shown as a footer row. I don't really know why this was changed to a bespoke table. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates used in those articles are pointless - templates should perform a function (parse text, perform layout, transclude information etc) and shouldn't be used when a standard wikitable will serve the purpose. The table used also provides for extra fields and sorting which can't be achieved with a template. In terms of the refs - I always reference every table line by habit - plenty of editors get hung up on referencing every minutiae of prose but are happy to wrap a 250 line table in a single ref. I don't think they do any harm and indicate that each row has been properly sourced. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The "Fact of fiction"a article is used quite a lot, but the reference covers eight pages. It would be better to use a single page for each reference in this article, rather than lump the whole eight pages onto every reference.

Spot-checks: The main source is the "Fact of Fiction" article. A few issues from spot-checks of this source, which may simply be mixing up sources. Worth a quick check, and another reason why it may be better to give individual page numbers for this source.

  • "The newspaper found by the Doctor in Part One was a reprint of The Times from September 1901": The source does not specify a reprint.
  • "and asked producer John Nathan-Turner if he could replace it but was told there was no money available.": The source does not say that no money was available.
    • As above.
  • One piece of close paraphrasing. No others that I could find from quite a lot of sampling.

Other:

All looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]