Talk:Dinosaurs on a Spaceship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. For reference, the review refers to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship&oldid=537188093 this version] of the article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

1a.
 * The lead would be better if the "Along with the third episode" and "The dinosaurs were" sentences in the lead were swapped, keeping like topics with like topics.
 * Done. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Taking Nefertiti with him" sentence in #Plot has an awkward construction. John is "from" place "in" time, while the Ponds are "after he last saw them".  Either split the sentences or use a parallel construction.
 * Believe I've fixed this. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On a positive note, I like how you worked in that the Silurians were a race of reptilian humanoids.
 * The last 4 sentences of #Filming and effects are a bit choppy.
 * That was actually added by someone else recently and isn't sourced, so I removed it. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A non-breaking space should be used between numbers and units of measurement (per User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet). 7.57 million should become , etc.
 * I believe I've caught all of them. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been clearer - you copied from this page's wikicode instead of the text. the text with nonbreaking spaces should still look normal when you aren't editing it - the &amp;amp;nbsp; was just so that the &amp;nbsp; didn't turn into   in the "normal" mode.  Fixed.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1b.
 * What's up with this content? It's present but commented out of the article.


 * Those are other links that haven't been added yet because the pages haven't been created, aside from "Brief" (which I added) and the Index File, which is already there (I removed the extra one). Glimmer721  talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference to a "well-known nightclub owner with long hair" is too hidden. Remembering that readers who aren't familiar with piped links (or who are using screen readers) will be reading this, the name should either be stated directly in the text or the link removed.
 * I removed it as the source never said it (indeed, I didn't know; it was added by someone else) and it's pure OR. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

2.
 * Do you have a citation for ""Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" received generally positive reviews from critics, with a few detractors."? I don't know if there are any "meta-reviews" out there, but if there are,  a source would be nice here. (Optional for this GAR, given the other sources, though.)
 * Well, that was sort of the topic sentence for the section. The first two paragraphs are the "generally positive" reviews, while the third has the more critical detractors. The episode is a bit too new for a general consensus to have been reached, I suppose. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From my own reading after the episode came out, I believe the statement is likely correct. Was just wondering if there was a source for it.  No big deal, as I said. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

2c. I just spot-checked the references; here's what I found. The first two need to be addressed.
 * Reference 16, "'Doctor Who' to resume filming this month, Saul Metzstein to direct", doesn't support the statement its cited in support of. A "few" does not mean "these two in particular".
 * Based on this, I've cited a Doctor Who Magazine (cover dated 8 March) which should support the statement. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Doctor Who Magazine, so I suppose I'll take your word that it works. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto reference 2b, "Doctor Who - Dinosaurs on a Spaceship preview: “Fun was absolutely The Big Brief!”" which again has a "few", though the Wikipedia article turns it into "four". Perhaps pair it with a reference from The Angels Take Manhattan.
 * Done. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference 32 is good.
 * Reference 9 is good.
 * Reference 24 is good.
 * Reference 38 is good.
 * Reference 1 is good.
 * Reference 6 is good.
 * Reference 19 is good.

6b.
 * Is there a reason that there isn't a screenshot in the article like the one at "The Stolen Earth"?
 * WP:WHO has been really stringent on images. They have to be supported by production or critical claims. If there is anything you could think of that would work (maybe the triceratops), I could probably add it. Glimmer721  talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the image of the "gang" here could work, as could one of the triceratops photos, perhaps with Rory's dad. But I suppose I can pass it without an image. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed everything. Thanks for reviewing this! Glimmer721 talk  18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your work on the article! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)