Talk:Destination: Skaro/GA1

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

Nominator: 08:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I need more points for the wikicup and also it would benefit my WikiProject and a frequent collaborator. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Production

 * The source claims that the minisode takes place prior to Genisis of the Daleks. Not simultaneously ✅


 * Link the lines about Davies being executive producer and Vicky Delow and Scott Handcock regular producers. ✅


 * This one is up to you but the plunger bit received a little bit of coverage, see here ✅

Broadcast and reception

 * Break up the sections about release and reception into two separate paragraphs. ✅


 * Tell me about the reliabilty of nerdgazam. ✅

Response
I know you're still working through it, but I fixed the first two issues. As for Nerdgazm, we have transparency in authorship and a clear editorial policy that explains its content policy which falls in line with WP:INDEPENDENT. The Doctor Who (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)