Talk:Doctor Who season 23/GA1

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


 * Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (no original research):
 * Strongly relies on a small number of web-based sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * At times veers into excessive detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * Yes. Low volume of edit activity; no edit wars apparent.
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Key Issues
This is a GA review. There are many reviews like it, but this one is yours.

The article falls short of GA standard in its present form. I'm not confident it merits the 'A-class' classification it has at the moment. With some work though you could improve the article into a solid A-class Good Article. You need to concentrate on two things: wording and style.

You've written up a lot of good information, but it's hard to tell; it's lost underneath all the overwriting. There's a lot of words in it that we tend to call $10 words -- "depicts", "surmises", "attempting", "albeit", "impeded", "noted". All of those have much simpler equivalents that won't make people think they're reading the SAT Verbal section. Likewise, avoid convoluted phrasings like "elects to choose" instead of "chooses" or "decides". Simplify, clarify, reduce.

Tone down the overblown phrasing and constructs. Remember, the user reading your article might be as young as 13. English might not be their first language. They might be learning-disabled. Your sentences are too complex for the average user, too. You're really fond of using semicolons and colons; while sometimes it's necessary, it comes across as heavy and hard to understand to the average user.

A readability test gives a rough indication of a work's readability. Some give an approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to understand the text. Here, take a look at some test results for The Trial of a Time Lord.

First, some context: 12th grade is the last year of compulsory secondary education, or "high school", in the U.S. Students are usually 17 to 18 years old. Most of those results place your article at 13th grade level. That's way too high! A different type of test, the Flesch Reading Ease test, gives a result of 46.1. An example: Harvard Law Review has a score in the 30s. Flesch identified a "65" as the Plain English Score.

The content of your article is good. Improving the prose will make it clearer, easier to read, and compelling.

Well written requirement
I strongly recommend a through copyedit. Please see the Guild of Copy Editors (and here) for information. The article needs clarifications from those familiar with its subject matter beforehand though.

Lead
The first sentence in the article is slightly confusing. We learn it's a serial ...encompassing a season ... in a series. Alhough apparently not an arc, like The Key to Time? The word arc isn't used in the article at all. Incidentally, the Trial of a Time Lord story is mentioned in that article with a beautifully clear description. The term "segments" is introduced without explanation. It isn't made clear the serial was divided in this way. A reader is left to assume its episodic format used clustering to form distinct subsets (segments), made up of a varying amount of episodes, as part of a whole set (serial). A little later the article talks about the plots of the segments, but their use is not explained. The use of 'remaining' looks awkward here. The names Bonnie Langford and Melanie Bush are mentioned for the first time. From the text it's unclear if she is replacing Peri as the Doctor's companion. This suggests it would not have been produced, period, were it not for changes mandated for the DW show. The second half of that sentence suggests the serial was somehow reduced from twenty-six episodes.
 * "The Trial of a Time Lord is a serial that encompasses the entire twenty-third season of British science fiction television series Doctor Who."
 * The third sentence: "No on-screen titles were given to the four distinct segments..."
 * 'Paragraph three: "The Trial of a Time Lord features the last onscreen performance ..."
 * "The serial was produced as a result of several production changes to Doctor Who; the reduction of episodes from twenty-six to fourteen prompted a different format than the previous season..."

In Production
It's not clear what was proposed in 1985. It is the twenty-third season. Having another serial period? A new format? They were approached to "quickly" write that, then later commisioned "at short notice" to complete the episode (or perhaps segment it's a little unclear) discussed in the previous paragraph. I can't tell if this studio-based serial was originally intended to be part of The Trial of a Time Lord, or a standalone serial in that season. Was this amount unusually large for those days, for Doctor Who, television generally, or science fiction shows? I don't know. You can't just put random facts in and expect your reader, who probably won't have specialist background knowledge, will know their relevance/importance.
 * First sentence: "The serial was first proposed in 1985 for several reasons: the twenty-third season was postponed ..."
 * "...the amount of screen time was reduced to fourteen 25-minute episodes;..." Presumably this reduction is from twenty-six, but it does not say it here. A Lead section should summarize the article content not give extra facts absent from the main body.
 * Paragraph two. Were the original writing team chosen to provide scripts for the season, rather than one for serial each to make up a season?
 * The article is inconsistent in referring only to the novelist Jack Story as late, not Robert Holmes.
 * Sentence two is very long. Shorter sentences are usually easier to read. This one has two redundant 'that's' and a 'then'. I suggest separating it into more than one sentence. A new sentence could begin: "Close liaison ...with..."
 * The In Production section has some needless repetition. Paragraph one says a BBC exec. wanted the series to contain less violence. In paragraph four, we learn the requirement the show should contain less violence (and more humour). Immediately this is repeated when we're told the production team stipulated there should be less violence and more humour.
 * The phrase "Little headway" (progress) may be difficult to follow for some readers.
 * Discussing initial reception of Robert Holmes's script you refer to it as Time Inc. (aka The Ultimate Foe). In the table further down you use Time Inc. as the alternative title. Which is the canonical title and which is the alternative? Excluding an early working title, it seems to be only known as The Ultimate Foe, according to its own article. Even more confusingly, the Serials list further down also gives The Ultimate Foe as an alternative title for Terror of the Vervoids.
 * "Holmes had to postpone...". You refer to "the fourth segment" in the independent clause here. You can just say "it" the second time.
 * Optionally, you could initially refer to Pip and Jane Baker as 'Husband-and-wife writing team Pip and Jane Baker'. You already link to their article though, which is good.
 * Pip and Jane Baker were commissioned at the last minute to complete the episode. The last episode? Had the penultimate one been written by that point? It's unclear.
 * The next paragraph puts us back to discussion of the second segment. There is a lack of clear flow.
 * Mission to Magnus seems to be a shelved planned serial of season twenty three. Mentioning it seems redundant. I would leave it out.
 * Philip Martin cited a "dislike of six part serials" This is the first mention of six part serials in the article. It is jarring to the reader.
 * Next Nathan Turner approaches Pip and Jane Baker to "quickly write studio-based serial Terror of the Vervoids"
 * Check if this is what you intend to say. According to the last paragraph, Terror of the Vervoids had no location filming. Its studio filming was in mid-July, again at end-July, and again in Mid-August. The alternative (?) title (Time Inc.) crops up again in this paragraph.
 * Nathan-Turner commissioned a 45-second model sequence that cost £8,000.

Segment 1
In regard to trials, you're generally charged with something, for having (allegedly) done something. It might be easier to split off the part about the rogue named Sabalom Glitz into a standalone sentence.
 * "...is charged by... for transgressing the First Law of Time..."
 * The prosecutor intends to show some things. How? Does he show them?
 * Article mentions "Peri Brown" though referred to her full 'legal' name earlier. Be consistent. Elsewhere she is referred to as "Peri", "Perpugilliam "Peri" Brown" and "Brown". The WP:WHO Style Guide states companions should be referred to by their forenames.
 * "The Doctor and his companion Peri Brown (Nicola Bryant) arrive on the tribal planet Ravalox, approximately two million years in the future; concurrently, rogue Sabalom Glitz (Tony Selby) attempts to obtain hidden secrets and advanced technology that are guarded by a robot."
 * "Throughout the trial, the Doctor becomes suspicious about evidence being censored and his TARDIS being bugged." This is poorly inserted. It does not fit in with the rest of the flashback-oriented paragraph.
 * "The Doctor also notes that Ravalox is very similar to Earth: their only astronomical difference is the position in the galaxy; and elements of Earth—notably, Marble Arch tube station and the novel Moby Dick—are present on Ravalox." This sentence about the striking similarity of Ravalox to Earth could be made simpler or separated out into multiple sentences.
 * "The Doctor and Glitz deactivate the robot for different reasons: the Doctor deactivates it because the robot's power supply is unstable; and Glitz wishes to gain access to the secrets." I can't tell from this sentence if they both deactivated it together, or one did so first then reactivated it.
 * "All of the parties" and "but the Doctor remains inquisitive on why". There is more difficult phrasing/language here.

Segment 2
Again, very convoluted wording, with $10 words like "surmises".
 * "The serial's narrative shows..." This highlights a different style to what we see in the rest of the article. You need to use a consistent real-world (out-of-universe) perspective. A Good Article has to comply with this MoS fiction guideline.
 * "...shows the Doctor at first investigating arms sales;...after...he surmises that"
 * "The Doctor arrives while a scientist, Crozier (Patrick Ryecart), is experimenting with brain surgery on a local king, Yrcanos (Brian Blessed), before performing on Kiv (Christopher Ryan), an influential Mentor." Rather than use commas in this way, recast the sentence.
 * "The Doctor is shown as malevolent". Again, oh my, convoluted wording!
 * "Specifically, the Doctor's transgressions are based on". Same wording problem as elsewhere.
 * "When the Doctor learns that Peri will be Kiv's host..." It's not clear from the context how: as in a symbiote/parasite, a dinner party?

Segment 3
More complex wording here. Here you imply (alien) geneticists transformed each vervoid from an original human. If you mean the Vervoid race origin derives through genetic engineering from humans, that should be made more clear.
 * "The Doctor's opening statement describes the segment as taking part in 2986 on the interstellar ship Hyperion III." Presumably 'part' should be 'place'? Regardless, the sentence still seems clunky.
 * "The voyage is initially unproblematic" This is really saying it starts well. Try to phrase statements in a positive form using clear, specific language.
 * "Vervoids are humans that were genetically engineered"
 * "The Vervoids prevent the sabotage" Sabotage by whom? You should state this.
 * Additionally, you already said the ship is being sabotaged. Either the Vervoids prevent further sabotage, or prevent would-be-saboteurs from carrying out their plans of sabotage.
 * "The Doctor's suspicions" This could refer to several things: a fixed trial, the sabotage, etc.
 * "The Valeyard's questioning becomes more aggressive; after the Doctor admits that no Vervoids survived the voyage, the Valeyard charges him with genocide." This could benefit from rewording.

Segment 4
This sentence is quite long and difficult to follow. It's unclear if The Keeper is called to prove the Matrix is insecure and the Master is giving routine video evidence. Also, the article never explicitly mentioned video before. You use double colons, and multiple independent clauses here. All make it harder to read than it need be. Rewriting the sentence to use active vs. passive voice will improve it. He's re-offered the office, technically; though I think it's safe to leave that out.
 * "In response to the Doctor's allegations the Matrix has been altered, the Keeper of the Matrix (James Bree) is called, seconds before the Master (Anthony Ainley) appears on the court's video system, which is linked to the Matrix, to prove that the Matrix can be infiltrated."
 * "To ensure a guilty verdict to a neutral jury, the Valeyard falsified evidence: most notably, Peri's death: she survived the attack on the laboratory and married Yrcanos."
 * "are impeded by the Master's machinations: the Master is attempting to concurrently dispose of the Doctor" You could omit 'concurrently'. Also, the wording and alliteration, again, make it less accessible.
 * "is now fully aware of the situation" This sentence could be phrased better.
 * "The Doctor thwarts Valeyard by causing the destruction of the Matrix archive." Missing a 'the' before Valeyard.
 * "The Doctor is offered the Time Lord presidency; he declines, suggesting that she run instead."

Reception and analysis
Presumably figures are for this season, but the writing is slightly ambiguous. In the original source, this sentence about directorial focus may have worked well. It doesn't here. Some redundant wordiness here. Plus, unless you're giving a reference, it's rarely important when the sentence appeared. This is quite a long quote, and you could replace some words with brackets. Alternatively you could paraphrase their point. E.g. scepticism/disbelief at idea of prosecuting counsel changing charges suddenly.
 * "...Audience Appreciation figures had improved since the previous season—the lowest figure was 66% for parts seven and nine ..."
 * "... viewing figures for the season were considerably down on the previous season..."
 * Please reference, if not covered by previous citations in the paragraph. (In which case they should probably be placed at the end of that paragraph).
 * Vague terms of size like "considerably down" tell us little. You need to say how much.
 * "Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping, co-authors of The Discontinuity Guide, gave a mixed reaction to the serial." Had a mixed reaction? In the book? Here there's an overwhelming impression of too many quotes from one source.
 * "and, directed without much thought, falls between several stools"
 * "They stated 'the plot hangs together remarkably well'. They said the 'opening shot is lovely' and 'episode 13 is a masterpiece'". "They praised..." This list of viewpoint after viewpoint looks quite disjointed.
 * "negatively reviewed" This phrase doesn't quite work.
 * "the serial in its fourteen-episode form." It was only made in one form.
 * ''"The opening sentence of their analysis stated that"
 * "very difficult to believe that in the Time Lord legal system - or indeed in any reasonable legal system - the charge directed at the accused, and even the type of proceedings involved , could really be changed at a moment's notice seemingly on the whim of the prosecuting counsel".
 * This section has a lot of information; at least about analysis. It's almost an 'executive summary', or 'scene-by-scene description', of each review. Much of this you can and should reduce.

Footnotes / References

 * You cite website Outpost Gallifrey's news page as the source for the delayed DVD release; a better, more authoritative reference would be the BBC press office or 2Entertain.
 * Aside from the BBC episode guide page (besides your release date change reference), you use one reference&mdash;heavily. References should be drawn from a variety of reliable sources.
 * Linking the Outpost Gallifrey site under Reviews and External Links seems unnecessary.
 * Consider whether some External links should be discarded as they've already been used as sources. Per WP:MOSBETTER / WP:LAYOUT: "External links – Related websites that were not used as a source but provide further background."
 * Several paragraphs in the middle of the In Production section do not cite references for their information, which the GA verifiability guideline mandating references to all sources of information requires. Other paragraphs in the section are cited, and it seems the information derives from the same source as those anyway, but right now it looks patchy.

Other Items

 * Dates should not be linked (MoS). Dates are wikilinked here and there in the article, often for no apparent reason. Per WP:Context and WP:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * You refer to novelisations in the Lead opening paragraph, yet give no information on them in the article.
 * Dates shouldn't use th suffix (WP:Manual of Style (dates)). The Production section contains "On Tuesday 9th July 1985, all four writers travelled to..."
 * For that matter, telling the reader it happened on a Tuesday is excessive detailing. A GA article must be broad yet focused in its coverage. Similarly, you tell us they travelled there. Readers wouldn't care if the four writers lived there. Perhaps you could say they met JNT/ES at the BBC offices on date for FOO purpose.
 * Most inline references need fixing: Moving the cursor over a reference numbered 5 will show it points to 4, etc.
 * GA articles should contain images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Broadly speaking you meet this requirement. In the article you use one non-free image in the Infobox, only. Sourcing non-free images for TV-related articles is difficult, and the article isn't that long. Ideally, you could use a picture taken by a fan during/after the making of the season could be used. It might be worth searching to see if any exist and seeking free use permission. I appreciate you may not ultimately be able to find any.
 * Per Manual of Style guidelines Lead section guidelines - see WP:MOS:IMAGES, editors should generally not force image size. On your infobox image you force a 250px size. Please check this is necessary.
 * I think the (WP:LEADCITE) Lead length while on the high side is within acceptable (usually four paragraph) limits. The article is 23 KB and around 15,000 characters, which normally correspond to a two or three paragraph lead. The lead has four paragraphs, but none are excessively long.
 * On the Image:ToaTL_DVD_cover.jpg image description page you use the image licensing template box twice.

Progress
I'm saddened many problems brought up in its peer review and its three featured article nominations remain:

First FAC nomination - April 28 2008: &lt;strikethrough&gt; Comment. ... I must express strong doubt regarding [nominator's claim few sources exist hence article having] lack of sources. - Vassyana &lt;/strikethrough&gt; ... Comment. Withdrawn after research. - Vassyana

Peer Review - July 17 2008: As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th ... Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) <li>Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - "some", "a variety/number/majority of", "several", "a few", "many", "any", and "all". For example, "All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green."</li> <li>Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas."</li></ol>

<li>Second FAC nomination - June 25 2008:</li> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li>The alternate titles for Nos. 146 and 147 should be explained, perhaps in the "Production" section. It's especially confusing since the alternate for 146 and the main for 147 are the same. Bellhalla</li> <li>I've now noticed that you aren't consistent even within the article with the title of the fourth serial. Sometimes it's the Ultimate Foe, sometimes Time Inc. You list both titles, but don't explain why it has two (that I saw) and you should stick with one to reduce confusion. JRP </li> <li>The lead is somewhat difficult to follow. [...] you appear to be summarizing individual sub-serials, but that's not clear from the text.[...] JRP</li> <li>"Throughout the trial, the Doctor becomes suspicious about evidence being censored and his TARDIS being bugged. The evidence shows the Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot: the former because the robot's power supply is unstable; the latter to gain access to the secrets." I really don't know what this is trying to say. I simply can't see the connection between the first and second sentences, although there seems to be one implied. Are there two pieces of evidence being presented, one showing the Doctor deactivating the robot and another showing Glitz doing it? Or is this trying to say that the Doctor and Glitz worked together, for different reasons? Gary King</li> <li>"The Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot...", do you mean "deactivate"? If so, perhaps "The Doctor and Glitz work together to deactivate the robot;" Maury <li>If production on Doctor Who was suspended, why was the series proposed? There looks to be a false cause-and-effect here. JRP</li> <li>Of greater concern is that most of your footnotes are from exclusively web sources. I will give you that the BBC here is reputable, but fansites should be used sparingly. (Even if they are as excellent as these! It's just not a good habit when you can avoid it. You have a lot more written references and it would be nice if you could use those instead of the fansite.) JRP</li> <li>The second paragraph in the "Production" section needs work. It's a little twisted and hard to follow. (Too many semicolons?) JRP</li></ol>

<li>Third FAC nomination - August 24 2008</li> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li>Oppose I'm saddened to see that there are still many silly errors in the article, ( diff ) Although I am happy to copy-edit articles when I have the time and enthusiasm, I don't like this increasing tendency to bring candidates here that are not ready. One does not have to be as talented as Tony to spot these problems. Graham Colm</li></ol></ol>

Final Thoughts

 * The commentaries and documentaries on the DVDs may have information worth covering.
 * It might be nice to look at why there was a new doctor in the following season, particularly if ratings in this season were a factor.

I'm putting the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me here with any concerns. Whitehorse1 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference, I am currently working on the article over at User:Weebiloobil/GA - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * we eb il oo bi l, thank you. -- Whitehorse1 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Failed: Article remains difficult to understand due to poor prose throughout. (I'm a native speaker of English, and have seen the series.) No real attempt made to fix problems reported. Whitehorse1 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)