Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who (series 5)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2018.

Doctor Who (series 5)

 * Nominator(s): --  Alex TW 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the fifth series of Doctor Who, and was promoted to GA status in 2012. With the edits that have been contributed to the article in the past six years, I believe it would be an ideal FA candidate. --  Alex TW 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv
Okay, so this is very much an outsider perspective on the article as I've seen very little of Doctor Who, but hopeful that's useful for prose improvement:
 * The description for episode 3 is a bit short, especially relative to the other episodes – I'd recommend 100 words as a lower bound (and 200 is the MOS upper bound).
 * In the episode list, what is the "AI" heading referring to? A footnote or Abbr seems necessary here.
 * "and the failure of which" – Not clear grammatically what this refers to. Maybe "... the crack in Amy's wall. Failure to capture the alien ..."
 * The "Star Whale" link doesn't work – the target should be List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (Q–Z).
 * "but which the Doctor recognises as his arch-enemies the Daleks" – I'm unclear what the "but" means. Is Churchill lying to the Doctor, has Churchill been lied to by Bracewell or is it the case that Bracewell created the Daleks? Then "Bracewell, who is revealed to be an android" is also a bit unclear – did the Daleks create Bracewell? If the audience isn't meant to understand (or to understand yet) that's fine, but otherwise more explanation is needed.
 * "the group finds themselves thirty feet above at the opening of the Byzantium" – Is there an idiom here I'm not understanding? Thirty feet above what? (Also, I think it's "find" and not "finds".)
 * "A crack very similar to the one in Amy's bedroom appears" – I think the episode descriptions should all be standalone, so mention "The Eleventh Hour" (e.g. "A crack very similar to the one that appeared in Amy's bedroom in "The Eleventh Hour appears...").
 * "which the Doctor discovers" – This refers to the crack (right?) but sounds like it could refer to the ship, so rephrase (maybe move "in the interior of the ship" to the start of the sentence).
 * "a projection of an Angel had entered Amy's eye after she had looked" – I think both "had"s can be removed.
 * "fled their planet because of the cracks in the universe" – The scope confuses me here. Were the cracks on their planet? In their solar system? Or if they are widely spread across the universe, how does this lead the aliens to flee?
 * "into her race to become mates of ten thousand of her male children" – I think "into her race to serve as mates for ten thousand of her male children" would be clearer.
 * "she sacrifices herself" – To accomplish what? To stop the storm?
 * "had previously been dragged below the ground, which then happens to Amy" – I know what this means but I'm not sure the grammar is right. Maybe "... below the ground; this then happens to Amy".
 * "up for they and Alaya" – Surely "they" should be "them".
 * "a museum" is an Easter egg link.
 * "back to meet Vincent" – I think referring to him consistently as "von Gogh" is better.
 * "the Krafyis, a lost and blind alien" – Is this a single alien or a species (or type) of alien?
 * "that people will admire him, this gives hope" – This is a comma splice which should be fixed.
 * "learn that he still did, however also learns" – This doesn't quite make sense. Maybe "learn that he still did, though she also learns".
 * "as the deadly cracks in the universe were linked to the TARDIS" – Linked in what way? Caused by? If it's not clear at this point, maybe you could explain the motives of the people e.g. "The Alliance believe the Doctor is causing the cracks with the TARDIS" or whatever their reasoning is.
 * "The trap" – What is this referring to? The Pandorica?
 * "also contains an Auton version of Rory" – "Auton" needs explaining (e.g. "an Auton (artificial life form) version").
 * "will force her ... once her DNA is given ... who places her hand" – There seems to be a tense change happening somewhere in the sentence. Make it clearer which bits are hypothetical and which are happening.
 * "due to something the Doctor told her" – Too informal. Is this a simple phrase that can just be quoted here? If not, maybe "a message the Doctor gave her" or "the Doctor's final words to her" or whatever.

Looking at the Production section, I see there are some similar issues to those above e.g. "and" doesn't make sense in this sentence: "However, Smith, who was only 26 when cast, was the third person to audition and the production team knew "[they] had their man"." I will continue with the review, but I suggest that you first make the changes above to the Plot, and then go through the rest of the article making thorough copyedits for grammar and coherence. By the way, ref #17 and #34 have errors and #168 has a dead link tag. And I noticed that some information from the lead—"the largely new production team led to the series production codes being reset"—isn't mentioned in the body (the prod codes are given but not linked to the new production team). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex: any word on resolving these issues? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Thanks for the reminder! I'll get to work on these issues for you first thing tomorrow. --  Alex TW 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your outsider perspective on the article is greatly appreciated, and I've made the recommended updates to the article. The dead link was from a transclusion from List of Doctor Who home video releases, which has been fixed with a new reference. Cheers. --  Alex TW 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the prose in the rest of the article is not FA standard. Take the first paragraph of the Costume section, which I picked at random:
 * The first sentence uses "costume" three times, which is repetitive and clunky, so the sentence needs to be rewritten.
 * The second sentence is very confusing in terms of tense—what's the "he would find" about? Should this just be "In the first episode, the Doctor found..."? Or "Initial plans were for the Doctor to find..."?
 * "and would identify" should be "and that would identify"
 * "once he had put it on they decided they had the costume" – Not an encyclopedic tone. An improvement would be "but they changed their minds when he put it on".
 * "the month of April 2010, connected to when the series began airing" – Connected is too vague. Replace with "the month of April 2010, which is when the series began airing".
 * The article needs a very thorough copyedit. In all honesty, this might be better done outside of the FA process, and the article may benefit from a Guild of Copy Editors request. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why a review was begun, the concerns of which were addressed rather quickly (after the reminder), only to end with "I'm sorry, but...". I've requested a copyedit review of the article from WP:GOCE, but I am certain that it can still be addressed throughout the FA process, especially since it took a week and a half for the FAC to initially be addressed to start off with while other FAC requests filed after this one were addressed even quicker. --  Alex TW 11:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I did say "I suggest that you first make the changes above to the Plot, and then go through the rest of the article making thorough copyedits for grammar and coherence". So no, you didn't address my concerns, and you shouldn't need a reminder because the nominator should be taking a more active role. I expected when I looked at the article that it would just be the Plot section that had prose issues, as this is the section new editors most commonly edit, but it turns out to be a problem throughout. I also expected, as is the standard, that you would have put a lot of work into the article prior to nomination, but I can't really see any edits you made in preparation for an FAC. I can't do anything about other people choosing different articles to review, and I'm sorry for not immediately recognising the issues with the article. I understand that what I'm writing is very negative, but it's not personal. The article isn't FA quality at the moment. If you can get it up to FA quality, I'll have another look. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I do have a life to take part in, and I was going to aim for a copyedit soon. I guess I didn't make that immediately clear. And I'm terribly sorry that I forgot to come back to one article; I expect, then, that you've never forgotten anything before, I could only wish to have such a memory! I will copyedit the article, as I've already stated, and also wait for further opinions on the article and its FAC. --  Alex TW 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then, if escalation is what you're aiming for then I'll formally oppose promotion to FA on 1(a) grounds. I'm unwatching this page and shall not return. I've done my best to give constructive criticism but if it's being met with deflections and antagonism then this isn't a place I want to volunteer. (Note to FAC co-ordinators: this isn't a pointed oppose because I've detailed many 1(a) issues above. I'm simply walking away from the review because I have no interest in conflict.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken your constructive criticism and applied it to the article, while also stating I was going to copyedit the article, including a request to GOCE. You were happy to help out with the article, but when met with the slightest attitude in response to your own, you "formally" hindered the nomination due to nothing but your personal dislike to my reply. That is the very definition of WP:POINT. Nevertheless, I thank you for your suggestions, and await the next editors to offer their opinions.

Comments by Cas Liber
Looking now....


 * I would change the first sentence as it just launches into dates. Maybe something like, "The fifth series of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who was originally broadcast on BBC One in 2010."


 * Though it is the fifth series since the show's revival in 2005 and the thirty-first since it began in 1963, the series features the production codes being reset. - umm, not sure what you're trying to get across here...


 * In the series finale it is revealed that the cracks were caused by the TARDIS exploding and the Doctor is forced to reboot the universe to the state which it was in without the cracks. - clunky, needs rewording


 * The seven episodes of the series which were not written by Moffat were penned by guest writers. Mark Gatiss, Toby Whithouse, Simon Nye, Richard Curtis, Gareth Roberts each wrote one episode each, while Chris Chibnall wrote a two-episode story. - can be tightened.


 *  The series was meant to be fantastical to stand out among other science fiction and fantasy shows and the production team pushed a fairy-tale quality because Moffat believed media aimed at children was some of the most popular among adults. - the whole first half of this sentence is puffy and should be drastically trimmed or removed.

I think I agree with Bilorv in that this needs a good going-over prose-wise, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely cover these come the morning. I agreed that it needed a good copy edit, which I both plan to do and have requested an assisting hand from GOCE. --  Alex TW 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
Sorry but the comments above indicate that the article was underprepared for FAC. I applaud the plan for a full copyedit with the assistance of the GOCE but this should be undertaken outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this. When copyediting is complete, I'd recommend submitting to Peer Review before renominating here. It's fine to ping previous reviewers of the article for both PR and a subsequent run at FAC. Thanks, Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Naturally. --  Alex TW 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.