Jump to content

Talk:The Name of the Doctor/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 19:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: I saw your comments on WT:WHO do you still plan to partake in the nom? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant I'll be fine to help with the completion of this nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ClaudineChionh (talk · contribs) 08:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Starting this. Note: this is my first ever GAN review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


I think this is getting really close! I haven't done a source check yet as I got sidetracked by a content dispute elsewhere, but I didn't want to leave this hanging over the weekend. I'll come back to this within 24 hours. Sorry, I shouldn't make promises I can't keep! But I havent't forgotten. Also, as noted, this is my first GAN review and I welcome feedback on my feedback.
I'm happy to pass this now. Congratulations and thank you for your patience! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The second and third paragraph of the "Writing" section have some awkward and overly-long sentences; but I think a lot of this could be cut – see #3b.
    Resolved
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    I have checked direct quotes and ratings figures (§ Source check). One needs a small correction. Two sources are unavailable and the Wayback Machine is down. The rest look good, so if Wayback is still down in, say, 18 hours, I'd still feel confident about passing #2b.
    The Archive is still doing maintenance but my spot check of the live sources gives me confidence to pass this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No likely issues raised by Copyvio Detector.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    This episode is not only the last one in the seventh series, it forms a kind of trilogy with The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor, setting things up for the 50th anniversary celebrations. I was surprised to see no mention of these at all in this article (only a fleeting reference at the very end).
    I tried to find something on this, but there is very little actually covering the connection, and if there's more detailed items, it's gotten very buried under more recent Google News results. I've added a source verifying this connection, and I'll see if me or my co-nom can't find something more detailed soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClaudineChionh: Yeah everything I found has been from non-rs and web forums. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think just adding those links to the two other episodes in the lead should be fine. It's possible I'm indulging in a bit of OR with my memories of 2013. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note you dont have to check every source just some of them usually between 5-10. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The "Writing" section starts off with context-setting observations about the darker tone and the introduction of a new kind of monster, but then gets tangled up in some of the changes between the original and final scripts, while missing the broader picture as noted in 3a. Similarly, the "Behind the scenes" factoids in the "Filming" section feel like unnecessary trivia. See § Suggested cuts below.
    Resolved
     – Sections trimmed.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Uses non-free episode promotional image (in line with other episode articles) and free image of unique monster.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think this is well on the way to GA status. Paring back the production trivia and adding more context leading up to the 50th anniversary episodes should satisfy #3.
    I believe this now meets all the criteria for a Good Article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested cuts

[edit]
Resolved

Source check

[edit]
  • § Writing
    "frothy" and "funeral-like"
     Partly done Accurate summary of the Ainsworth source, but "frothy" appears on p. 88 (not p. 89) and I couldn't find a direct quote for "funeral-like" so it shouldn't have quotation marks
    The idea of the Whisper Men came from "the thought of stylish, whispering, almost faceless creatures" which seemed frightening and appropriate for "an episode that looks forward and back".
     Pending Why did I try to check this while the Wayback Machine is offline? I'l try again later this weekend otherwise will have to take it on trust.
  • § Home media
    Moffat later complimented the "210 of them, with the top secret episode in their grasp – and because we asked nicely, they didn't breathe a word."
     Verified Metro source
  • § Broadcast
    seen by 5.46 million viewers upon its initial release
     Pending This ref is actually for "Nightmare in Silver" overnight ratings. I couldn't find a ratings report for "Name of the Doctor" in the SFX/GamesRadar+ archive. The original URL was http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/05/19/doctor-who-the-name-of-the-doctor-overnight-ratings/ but that's now a dead link and I can't check the Wayback Machine.
    the figure rose to 7.45 million
     Verified Ainsworth source
    making Doctor Who the third most-watched programme of the week on BBC One
     Verified Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (now Barb Audiences) source
    Appreciation Index of 88
     Verified Ainsworth source
  • § Critical reception
    The Guardian described the episode as "the best episode of the season", and "possibly the best finale we've seen".
     Verified
    Mark Snow of IGN gave the episode 9.1/10, praising the final conversation between the Doctor and River Song, as well as the revelation about Clara; however he noted that the Great Intelligence was "a little underwhelming" and "not very threatening", and that while the Whispermen impressed initially, they did not "[make] a great villain."
     Verified
    Hogan, Daily TelegraphHe noted that it was "momentous, moving and thrilling". However, he also noted that the episode had "a tad too much clunking exposition, the odd spot of creaky CGI and some unconvincing metaphors about soufflés and leaves." Despite this, he called it a "breathless, brilliant finale".
     Verified
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.