Talk:The Crimson Horror

SFX Sourcing Issue

All the SFX references don't seem to be working properly, as they don't link to the specific articles cited, but just to the main page of the SFX website. Are there any alternate sources that could be used? - ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Crimson Horror/GA1.

Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 03:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'm interested in taking this on. I'll have the review up in the next couple of days. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up! I'll do my best to properly respond to any feedback you have in a timely way. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: The nominator isn't the article's biggest contributor, but this is not required per GAN instructions. (Courtesy ping Glimmer721, who appears to be on a wiki-hiatus.)

Sources

• The SFX links aren't functional – please add archived versions that work (if available). I've done this for ref #2; haven't checked the rest.
  • Done.
• Ref #1 has the same issue.
  • Fixed.
• Ref #14 is missing work
  • Done.
• Refs #1, 5, 6, 17, 19: change publisher to work.
  • Done.

Lead

• Para 2 is quite dense: suggest breaking it into smaller sentences.
• Should be made more clear that Emma Peel is a character from The Avengers and not Doctor Who.
  • All fixed.

Plot

• The Synopsis section reads clunkily to me; here are some specific suggestions.
• a mysterious cause of death in which victims are found dumped – needs rephrasing
• The process did not work on the Doctor because he was not human, and he was saved from being destroyed when Mrs Gillyflower's blind daughter Ada had hidden him. – needs more detail. What was he saved from?
• everyone on Earth will die except everyone who lives in Sweetville – suggest rephrasing to avoid repeating "everyone"
• When Clara returns home, she finds the → she finds that the
• They force her to take them on a trip. – a trip where? (Looking at the plot for the next episode, seems like a trip through time.)
• Continuity has 3 really short paragraphs; suggest merging to 2.
• he connects his mind to the retina of the dead Wirrn – um, mind to retina? Perhaps just say to the dead Wirrn.
• The last para of Continuity is uncited.
• Image: wikilink Doctor Who Experience
  • All done.

Production

• This sentence needs elaboration: the street had to almost be "too perfect" to demonstrate how wrong it was. (presumably the wrongness is due to the Crimson Horror).
  • Done.

Reception

• Suggest adding a Broadcast subsection.
  • Done.
• Ref #16 doesn't say it's the lowest rated story of the season (for this, you should be able to use one of the refs from Doctor Who (series 7))
  • Done.
• It seems undue for Doctor Who Magazine's review to have a full para while the others get only ~1 sentence each.
  • Reduced the DWM review's size.
• This point isn't necessary for GA, but I suggest looking at WP:RECEPTION for some great advice on structuring the section.
  • I've tried to reshuffle the Reception section to fit this (the most negative review is at the bottom now) - will probably work on it more.
• Add a space after ref tags that occur at the end of a sentence.
  • Done

Commercial releases

• Single-sentence sections aren't a great idea. Ref #4 has more on the book (writing style, audiobook narration by the main cast, circumstances around Diana Riggs' death, etc.) that could be added here. If there are reviews of the book, those would fit here too.
  • Done.
• Suggest renaming section to Novelization and removing the subsection
  • Done.

Placing it  on hold for now; please ping me after you're done. Thanks. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel I've done every change you've suggested so far, but the only one I'm struggling with is expansion of the novelisation section through Ref #4. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the novelisation, being an interview Steven Moffat did back in 2013 - would you mind clarifying how it relates? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant ref #6 - this Radio Times article from March 2021. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel Done everything suggested! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Made some copyedits, mainly to the lead for readability. How does it look? (Feel free to revise). Also, one last comment – The episode is the 100th episode since the reboot back in 2005 is in the lead, but not in the body; it should be mentioned somewhere, with a source. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits all look fine to me! Also, I'm probably going to remove the part about it being the 100th episode since the reboot, as it's mostly trivial information. None of the sources I've looked through seem to mention it, and the episode itself doesn't make a big deal with it. Does that sound ok? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, done. Is that everything? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Yep. Congratulations on the GA! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! You've been excellent this whole process. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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.