Wikipedia:Peer review/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe/archive1

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it twice failed as a featured list candidate in July 2007; it has been substantially modified since then and I'm thinking of resubmitting it, and I'd like some feedback as to whether it now meets the featured list criteria.

Thanks, Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

This is a formidable piece of work which has clearly involved a great deal of effort in its compilation. Unfortunately I don't think that its presentation does justice to its content.

The reader is faced with an introductory block of print, no images or other enticements. The introduction is quite ponderously written, almost legalistic, and the reader soon comes across this disclaimer: "Nor is the fact that a story or episode has a date attributed to it in the list intended to imply that it is indeed set on that date". This rather undermines the value and purpose of the project, because you are effectively saying that the information can't be relied on.

Some of the phraseology used is convoluted, difficult to understand. Examples: "disparate attributable dates"; "delves into time travel"; appearing to predominately take place". I had particular difficulty unravelling this sentence: "Over the long period of production, different writers have suggested different dates on which the shows are set, resulting in some noted controversy over their placement in any timeline, testament to the significance of the series' continuity and chronology within its fandom." This sentence is then followed by another disclaimer: "Any date attributed...should be regarded as an indication of the boundaries of the controversy, not as a statement of its correct resolution."

As a general point, it might be that, within this project, you are simply trying to give too much information. Certainly my head was spinning as I tried to work through the tables and get a sense of their meaning. This may be because I am not a Dr. Who fan and have never seen the spin-offs you refer to. However, the aim must be to produce a list/article that is generally accessible, not one that only makes sense to the aficionados.

Here are some suggestions as to how the introductory text might be improved:
 * Subdivide the introduction. In the first part, state clearly what Dr Who is/was, giving its televised date ranges. Do the same for each of the spinoffs.
 * In the second part, explain the information that you are presenting in the tables, but do it in a positive way, rather than in a manner which seems to be saying: "I'm giving you a lot of information, but don't take too much notice, it might not be right".
 * Lose the disclaimers; if a date is disputed, say so in a simple note or footnote to that date, rather than by a general statement about controversies.
 * Find more accessible, reader-friendly language.

As to the tables, all 20 of them, I can't say I found these easy to work through. Information (for example in the second table, the entries for The Aztecs and The Girl in the Fireplace) were very difficult to interpret. If the colour coding was explained anywhere, I missed it.

May I say, finally, that I do admire the care and thoroughness with which these lists have been put together, and would very much like to see them presented in a way that does them justice. I hope that my suggestions, above, will enable you to do this and bring the project successfully to FL.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time and effort to carry out this review. It is much appreciated. And it is surprising how flaws that one was blind to when editing are so readily apparent once they’re pointed out!
 * I think most of the flaws derive from two main concerns. The first was to minimise the length of an already lengthy article (though as a list, the length recommendations are not as strictly imposed), which has perhaps stressed conciseness over clarity, and probably also explains the lack of images. The second is to try and ward off allegations of WP:POV and WP:NOR.
 * Apart from the occasions where there is contradictory dating (and the list does not come down on one side or another), there are people who question assumptions such as when a character gives the date, that they’re correct; that they’re using the Gregorian calendar (especially in episodes set in the far future or where the character is an alien, etc); that historical events happened on the same dates in the fictional universe as the real one, etc; and that logical deductions deriving dates from one or more events are really ‘obvious’ (and therefore not OR).
 * To deal with this, the stance the article takes is not to say that a story is indeed set on a particular date (or dates), but rather to say that one or more dates can be attributed to a story. That is, when the Doctor says its 1981, that it’s possible it’s set in 1981 AD; that when a story is set around the Great Fire of London, that it’s possible it’s set in 1666, etc. And attributed is used because if no date can be derived, then all dates are possible.
 * However, the assumption people seem to have that such a list as this is indeed saying that stories are set on the date given is so strong that the point has had to be hammered home by repetition and the use of legalistic language to avoid ambiguity in order to pre-empt criticism. But, it may be that this is better and more clearly dealt with by ignoring the attributable/possible distinction and simply going with ‘Possible dates’ and explaining all this in the opening? What seems to have happened is that people have dealt with this by modifying what was already there, and really the opening needs to be redrafted from scratch.
 * As for the colour-coding, the idea was that people should be quite able to work out what colours went with which Doctor or show – but that may be not quite the point! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)