Talk:Nightmare in Silver/GA1

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

Nominator: 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this on soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written.

2. No OR, all of the info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead
-I'd choose a different word than "charges" since that may be confusing for some readers ✅

-I'd add an overall view of what reviewers thought, then follow with Gaiman's statement, since it's a bit blunt right now.
 * There's no "overall view" yet if you are referring to "positive/mixed/negative reviews", as there's no source backing up what this view may be. See WP:SYNTH, such situations need to be considered when reviewing the good article nominees. ภץאคгöร  19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nyxaros I definitely agree that the article's Reception doesn't seem to have an easy "positive, mixed, negative" in this case. Admittedly, I wrote this before looking at the Reception, and forgot to remove this comment. In any case, I will state that I don't think this is an issue in most cases so long as the information is easily verifiable in the article. It's less easy here, so I concur that it's probably something that should be excluded in the case of Nightmare in Silver. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Plot
-Does super-consciousness hyperlink? Might be worthwhile to do so.
 * It does but to a different thing, the more appropriate term would be hive-mind.

-Hyperlink split personality. ✅

Production
-Looks good

Broadcast and reception
-I'd fuse the second, third, and fourth paragraphs together. ✅

-"IGN's Mark Snow gave a positive review, though he felt that the episode was somewhat underwhelming but still worked as the return of the Cybermen" I'd make the "positive review" part the first sentence, and then reword the rest into a second sentence. ✅

-I'd fuse five and six together. ✅

Overall
-Article looks mostly good. Just clear up the above and it should be good to go. Ping me if you have questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have addressed most of the concerns with the exception of critical reception line in the lead. It was previously there but I removed it following another editor claming that it shouldnt be there.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with that other editor on the matter. One last thing, if it's not too much, but would you be willing to further reword the IGN sentence? The split I feel is fine but it reads rather clunkily. I'd reword the second sentence to something like "Despite feeling that the episode was underwhelming, Snow felt the episode worked well as a return for the Cybermen." Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @OlifanofmrTennant apologies, forgot to ping you. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hows that? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @OlifanofmrTennant I'd at change "of the" to "for the" but that should be all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)