Talk:Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:
· · ·