Talk:Love & Monsters (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Grabbing this one for a review. Straight away, both the fair use images are needed for the article. Miyagawa (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay; I was a little unsure of the second one. Note that the source for the image is found archived here, but not the actual image. I've had a hard time finding it anywhere else, so I'm not sure it would even count. I'm considering adding a free image of either Davies or Kay to the reception section at any rate. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it counts because of the unusual nature of the alien's creation. So it's good to see literally the source of the design as well as what appeared on screen. Anyway, I'll finally get that review done now! Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lead: Right now I think it looks a little unbalanced. On my screen the first paragraph is two lines, the second is three and the third paragraph is eight lines. The second paragraph could do with the standard line to explain what the show is before "In this episode", and I would personally move the Blue Peter origin line from the third paragraph to the end of the third. Those two changes should increase the size of the first two paragraphs and reduce the third sufficiently to address the balance.
  • I tried explaining what the show is both in general and with what specific characters at the time of this episode (harder than I thought...), so feel free to critique that. Do you mean move the Blue Peter line to the end of the second paragraph? I'm not quite sure because it also has to do with production. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That looks fine. I removed a couple of duplicated links (the Doctor and TARDIS). It makes the second paragraph on par with the size of the third, although the first one does look small in comparison. But I don't think much can be done about that - moving the Blue Peter line probably doesn't fit well with the structure and I tried merging the first and second paragraphs and it just looked horrible. Best to leave it as it is right now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Plot: The actors names should follow the first mention of the characters (as you have in the lead). You don't have to repeat those that have already appeared in the lead, but some people like to. I've seen episodes with both styles, and both look fine.
  • I did the second and left out Tennant and Piper because they're both in the lead and in production again, and it just didn't quite seem to fit in with the way the plot is (the characters are mentioned before they appear, for instance). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• External links: If the reviews are reliable then I'd suggest that they are incorporated into the article, otherwise I'd say to remove them.
  • I removed them, though I just kept the Ratings Guide up there as another external source. OG is already linked in general and the other review was a bizarre addition. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Once you've had a look at that, then I'll run through the prose. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I got rid of the period after "Mr" because that's technically British English. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that, I'll turn the International English side of my brain on so I don't go and spellcheck everything into British English. Miyagawa (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Er. Why shouldn't everything be spellchecked into British English? As a production of the BBC, and not a co-production with an American station, MOS:TIES applies. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there an established practice from the Project? Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes; WP:WHO/MOS#General, third bullet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, the article should be in British English after all then. Thanks for clarifying. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Production: Would it be better to say that The Zeppo and Lower Decks focused on different characters rather than character? I don't recall The Zeppo that well, but I know Lower Decks concentrated on three or four non-main characters. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Corrected; I don't think I've seen "Lower Decks" but I have seen "The Zeppo" (coincidentally I watched it again last night), and that one pretty much just focuses on Xander. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the episode is good to go for GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay I believe I have fixed everything then. Thanks for the review! Glimmer721 ^talk 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, all looks good now. Happy to promote. Miyagawa (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)