Talk:Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)

Moving To Mainspace

{{subst:requested move|Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)|reason=The article can only be read as a draft, and because the episode has now been broadcast, I believe that this draft should be moved into the mainspace.}} Foxx247 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Necesity of the video.

@TheDoctorWho: I don't think the video should be included. It doenst provide significant context. While it is using a CC license its a smaller clip of a copyrighted work. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

From the contextual standpoint, I felt the TARDIS returning and playing Wild Blue Yonder was at least partially-significant given that it's the namesake for the episode, especially since the mystery of the TARDIS "running away" in the first place was a significant plot point. The one minute video alone portrays approximately 7% of the plot summary within the article, which I admit isn't much, but was considered significant enough to include in the plot summary to begin with.

I also just realized that this article doesn't mention or link to the fact that "Wild Blue Yonder" (the song) was played. I'll try to add something into the production section if sources exist. Once that's done we could scoot the video down to the area that discusses it (and trim it to the just the portion that plays) to better illustrate the context.

That said, if consensus (even if it's just a sole consensus from you) is to remove it, I won't object. I just wanted to explain my thought process and potentially provide an alternative options. Thoughts? TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Just chipping in to note that the Wild Blue Yonder mention went after the plot was trimmed for length. As it happens, I had been working (off-site) on my own trimmed summary that kept in some of the parts that have now been removed, including the WBY bit. What I need to do now but haven't yet had the chance to is compare my drafted plot summary to the current, edited plot summary, and see if I can incorporate some of my improvements (and I'm trying to be as objective as possible here) without exceeding the length.

I'd kept the mention of the song in my draft of the plot because (a) it links to the title of the episode, (b) the alternative (it seemed to me) would be to add a 'Continuity' section - and I'm not a fan of those. Hadn't thought about Production section, seems a bit buried and as you note would need sourcing, whereas in the plot it would be allowable self-sourcing. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can squeeze it into the plot then by all means go for it. I only cut it since I was being very strict with unneeded info to meet the word count. At worst I feel it can be squeezed into Production after the salt mentions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely understand why you cut it. I've been similiarly strict with the plot for Empire of Death, and I fear/know that I will have to make similar hard choices with my own draft here. I'm actually rewatching the episode now to try and see if there's anywhere I can save on the wordcount by compressing the chronology of events (and additionally have discovered some parts of my draft were factually wrong). I'm conscious of not leaving you all hanging for too long, so I'm aiming to finish my pass of the plot before tomorrow morning. It may lead to a few tweaks, or a bigger rewrite, or even me just throwing my hands up in the air and declaring that actually I can't improve on it XD JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Best of luck! Hopefully all goes well in your rewrite endeavors. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have written a plot summary that is, as I count it, a little over 390 words (from a draft that was intially closer to 500). As well as restoring mention of the Wild Blue Yonder, it also manages to restore the "mavity" change (links to the Christmas special) and the Doctor's invoking of a superstition and regret at having done so (links to The Giggle). I achieved this by trimming some detail of things like the robot's name, and condensing the action involving the not-things rather than trying to hit each and every beat. I'll edit it in a paragraph at a time rather than changing the entire plot at once, to make for more easily comparable diffs. Will make sure final edit note indicates I've finished, and after than I will leave it up to the readers to decide if I've improved the summary or not. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion Would you like to be listed as co-nom on the GAN for your contributions? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I feel my contribution to the whole article is relatively minor, and you appear to have plenty of co-nominators already. I'm sure there will be other opportunities for me with other DW articles in the future :) best regards, JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regardless, thank you for your help with your work on the article. It's much appreciated. :) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have started copy-editing sections of the article other than the plot. My overriding aim has been to keep all the information necessary in the article, but present it without convoluted phrasings or redundancy. If I have gone too far and removed too much, please by all means reinsert as necessary.

There was one part of the "Development" section I was unable to copy edit though as the reference was a YouTube video. ...Davies describing the goal as aiming for an "ideal" with the design. I don't know what this means. "ideal" is clearly a direct quote, but I can't understand it without the context. Is there a better way of describing the goal so that it's completely clear for the reader of the article?

Similarly, I have tried to simplify the description of the prosthetics and their uses, but I'm not 100% sure if I've successfully achieved this, so another pair of eyes would be very helpful. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The "ideal" quote is referring to Davies and the set designers striving to create the "ideal" set out of the various designs thrown about during pre-production, iirc. Otherwise, edits look good overall. Nice work and thank you for the help. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Could this be simplified by just saying something like 'Davies wanted to consider [all/many/various] options before settling on his ideal design'? Or even just replace '"ideal"' with 'ideal design'? I don't think directly quoting the single word is doing anything other than causing confusion, at least for me. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. That should be fine. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Expect comments in an hour or two. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

After a first read-through, the page only seems to have a few minor issues, and clears most criteria. I'll give detailed remarks on #Plot and #Production when I get the time in a few hours. For now, I'll remark on the other sections.

Lead

• former companion Bonnie → companion actor, or something like that
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• received positive reviews → add what was praised (and what was criticised, reception section gives both) in half-one sentence.
  • Done. No consistent criticism points so I only included what was primarily unanimous among reviewers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Reading the reception section, I think the CGI criticsm is common for 2 out of the 5 reviewers.
      • It's still nowhere near a consensus, especially since one source is praising the episode's visuals, which includes many shots involving the CGI. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
        • I was trying to add a bit more WP:NPOV, but true, it might give Undue weight to the two reviews, fine, I'm fine with it

Ratings

• Try to find a different source than DW news for the AI (though I won't fail the review if you can't), and perhaps add the Barb ref present at the end of the para(ref 28) to the first sentence- atleast the viewer number will be better sourced.
  • Couldn't find another source unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Split the second para into two- The DoG and Collider reviews being in the new para, per WP:Paragraph
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• Para 1: make it clear it was kind of a cold open, seems kind of expected to tie in the plot.
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• sonic screwdriver into the TARDIS to repair it → did it break last ep or due to the malfunction.
  • I've tried messing with it a bit to change it to "crashes" so the damage is more apparent to readers. I feel going into more depth would go over our word limit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Oh, right, the TARDIS is the thing broken, not the sonic; change "it" to "the Tardis", the pronoun is ambigous
      • Clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• corridor. There are no signs of life anywhere on the ship → and finding no signs of life anywhere on the ship
  • This doesn't really connect well with the previous sentence. I think it's better standalone. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• to stop the Not-Things copying them and taking control of the ship → weren't they also trying to take over the universe, maybe mention that
  • I feel just saying the ship works better for simplicity's sake. They need the ship to get into the universe, after all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• remember to still keep it below 400 words of course, when all the above is done

Development

• Para 2 seems disjointed, probably start it at "The episode references...", and add the preceeding text into para 1(sentence 1 after cameo speculation, and sentence 2 between "of the lot" and "Some critics")
  • Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm very confused what you want me to do. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Davies had conflicting ... Not-Things on the spaceship. in the second para should be incorporated into the second para, it seems related to what the first para is saying (sorry if this is confusing too)
      • It's already in the second paragraph? What do you want me to do with this information? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
        • It seems related, and per WP:PARAGRAPH, related stuff should be in the same paragraph

• Para 3: The VFX Team and Art Teams→The VFX and Art teams
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Filming

• Seems short, expand somewhat
  • Found a new source and expanded what I could. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

• Some publishers/ website are wikilinked, some are not; choose one, per MOS:CONSISTENT
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 4(doctorwhotv.co.uk): Remove, fansite plus the sentence has already one ref, so redundant enough
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Link YouTube for youtube videos between title and access date, unless that's just how cite video template works(ref 5, 9, 14)
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Fuck, I don't know how link sneaked in here, I meant move, sorry. Basically, (link. YouTube. access-date; not link, date- via Youtube). Doesn't need to be linked, per MOS:CONSISTENT, as you have already chosen not to link the others
      • Do you want me to add access dates? Bit confused what you're asking about here.
        • I have seen YouTube links cited differently, but going through the cite AV template, it seems the better way, so it's all good too

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 10: The publisher is BBC, not Doctor Who, as written
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 34, 37: same as youtube, but for penguin.co.uk
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Same point here, as for YouTube
• CultBox and DWN are fansites, just remarking for sake of completion, in case they do become suspect later, doesn't need to be removed for the sake of this review.

Overall

@Pokelego999 and TheDoctorWho: That's it for now, a second read-through might find something, but seems unlikely, so that's all from me. Good luck. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll start on this within the next 24 hours or so if the primary nom doesn't beat me to it. A quick courtesy note for your future reference: pings only go through if the edit is signed in the same edit you create them in. In other words, neither of us received this ping (even though the original message was signed), because they were added after the fact. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho:Sorry, I thought it would go through because I used the template. Thanks, will keep in mind. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: replied to your replies; I gave it a second read, but I see no additional problems, so just see to my five replies, and I'll pass the article. Good luck! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I've replied to a few points. Let me know what needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Replied back, but my #development remark seems to be getting miscommunicated; I agree with your points on everything else, so can I just make a minor change to the paras myself, if you are fine with it, and pass the article to GA? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 that should be fine. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrulations @Pokelego999 and TheDoctorWho:, the article has been passed to GA. Well done! Very well-written article DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·