Talk:Cyberwoman/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Going to give the article a proper read through shortly and I'll list any issues here. Miyagawa  (talk)  21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very fine article and a pleasure to read. Miyagawa  (talk)  22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot: Third sentence - I'd suggest wikilinking Torchwood One in the same way that Torchwood Three is linked in the first sentence.
 * Done.
 * Third paragraph - I'm thinking that there needs to be a bracketed sentence explaining briefly what "deleted" means. 99% of people reading it will know, being fans, but that 1% won't know what it is. I think something along the lines of "(being killed by the Cyberwoman's electric touch)" or the like.
 * Done.
 * Filming: "secret agent." - needs a direct reference following the quote sentence.
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
 * Costume and effects: First sentence, same as previous line - needs a direct reference following the first sentence due to the two quotes. I don't see "sexy" in the second sentence as being necessary quote, and so I don't think that sentence needs a direct quote.
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
 * I think the final two sentences of Costume and effects flow better if they were joined together - for instance "The visual effect of the tools used to create Cybermen were reused from the Doctor Who episode "The Age of Steel", while the UFO footage when the Torchwood team return from the drinks was a tin foil-covered frisbee on a fishing line." However that's just my opinion, I think with two separate sentences it starts to sound a little like a list.
 * Done. -- Matthew RD 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the bits above, I ended up adding the two cites myself as the required ones were just further down in the paragraphs. Miyagawa   (talk)  23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Happy to promote this one to GA. Nice job! Miyagawa  (talk)  23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. -- Matthew RD 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)