Talk:Midnight (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey! As a thank you for reviewing George Knight (EastEnders), I'll review this article. Expect comments soon. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Woww, I did not expect it to get reviewed the same day as nomination. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied to everything. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article could use a free image somewhere, but it isn't a requirement.

• Searching again
  • Couldn't find anything

Lead and infobox

 Done

• remove "much more".
• "playing only a minimal role" → remove "only".
• Attribute the quote "companion-lite". I understand citations in the lead isn't required, but it is good practice to use them to support quotes.
• "principally" → reword.
• remove comma after "vehicle".
• "which" → "that".
• remove comma after "inside".
• "feel" → "atmosphere".

Plot

 Done

• "...sapphires- he goes..." → "...sapphires. He goes..."
• remove "briefly".
• remove "which would need some time to arrive".
• "Doctor's" → "Doctor".
• "reach hysterical levels of paranoia" → "become paranoid".

Production

Writing

• The first two paragraphs are rather similar and can be combined.
  • Longer paragraphs are hard to read
    • They aren't hard to read. I would understand if combining would create a wall of text but combining the section wouldn't stand out too much. It looks better now, but I still don't see why the two sentences on the script can't be added to the above paragraph. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I disagree; the first para is the general idea of a companion-lite episode, the second para is the actual reason and thought process. Also, not to be literal, but first para is 3.5 sentences, being half the size of the second para
• "two-fold" → reword.
  • I do not see a better word than this here
    • "He described the possession and human paranoia as the two threats facing the doctor." ? FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • He didn't describe it like that, he said longer quotes. An accurate rewording would require too much detail and quoting
        • "two-fold" is doesn't read formally, though. If he said it and you can't think of a replacement then quote it. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • It does read formally, but I reworded it anyway
• "60" → "sixty".  Done
• "Scene 9" → "scene nine".
  • its named as such, so I feel it should be treated like a proper noun
    • I don't know how WP:MOSNUMERAL-friendly that is, but I think it's minor enough to be okay. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "44" → "forty-four".  Done
• "There were many references to the series' ... on a television screen." Remove, not essential in the episode's production and writing.  Done
• Same issue as above, the poem can be removed. Its relevance is minimal.  Done(both had been present for a long time on the article, so I wasn't sure what to do with them)

Casting

• "David Troughton was a late replacement" as what character?  Done(had removed bcs it seemed redundant)
• Maybe mention David Troughton's relation to Patrick Troughton, the rest of the section from "Now known for his stage work ... director of the episode, Alice Troughton." is not needed.
  • removed some, though I kept the info of his connections with the franchise
    • "He has had a long association with the series since the 1960s, appearing as an uncredited extra in the Second Doctor serial The Enemy of the World, as Private Moor in the Second Doctor serial The War Games, and as King Peladon in the Third Doctor serial The Curse of Peladon. He has also appeared in a bunch of Doctor Who audio dramas." Is this about Patrick or David? Needs disambiguated, is this David or Patrick? I also feel like this still contains a lot of uneessary information, especially if this is referring to Patrick.
      • I'll mention it's David, and shorten it again.
        • I won't lie, it still seems a bit off-topic, but I see the justification. However, "a bunch of" is way too informal for Wikipedia. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • Reworded bunch of to "some"
• "The main guest star for the episode was Lesley Sharp" as what character?  Done
• "Davies himself" → "Davies".
  • I think it should be emphasised that the writer himself wanted her cast
    • You get the same effect without the word "himself" while being grammatically correct. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure using himself for emphasis is grammatical
        • I can't see how it is needed, but you seem convinced that it's necessary and it's minor enough to just leave it. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "He was cast in the BBC One series Merlin soon afterwards." unneeded.  Done

Filming

• "Studio 6" → "Studio six".
  • See above for scene 9
    • Okay FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Remove "Doctor-lite" and "eleven".
  • removed eleven, Doctor-lite is good for context
    • Fair enough FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Scene 9" → "Scene nine".
  • See above
    • Noted FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "scenes 9A to 9K" is not understandable to a broad general audience, explain.
  • I need the general audience knows things are filmed in parts?
    • You'd be surprised. Maybe "scene 9 was broken into several sub-scenes"  Done
• "film it in real-time too" reword.  Done

Broadcast and reception

• "This made it one of the highest placed episode ever in the show's history" reword.  Done
  • That wasn't the issue I had, "highest placed episode ever" is pretty clunky. I'd suggest "this made it one of the highest-rated episodes in the show's history". "Rated" shouldn't cause confusion given the context.  Done
• "The episode received an Appreciation Index score of 86 (considered Excellent)." Isn't this reception?
  • Nope, it's a rating given by viewers
    • "The Audience Appreciation Index (AI) is an indicator measured from 0 to 100 of the public's appreciation for a television or radio programme" This is reception as it is how the episode was received by people, it doesn't matter if they aren't critics. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I disagree, plus this is how all/most Doctor Who episode articles, including the GAs, list the Index
        • I don't see how that is considered broadcasting information and not reception when it discusses how the episode was received. It doesn't matter what other articles do. I don't mean to be rude but please tell me how it falls under broadcasting information, move it to reception, or remove the information. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • It's information that is collected by/for the broadcaster. It isn't supposed to be revealed to the public (though it usually leaks out anyway), it's just for the broadcaster's sake. A TRP wouldn't be considered a reception either. It's literally the MOS for Doctor Who articles, how does it not matter that other articles do it?
• Ref 13 is before ref 6
  • 13 is viewer number, 6 is index score, would prefer to keep it sequintal
    • My mistake FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Many reviewers felt that the episode to be tense and claustrophobic, which was praised to be a great atmosphere and making for a great horror episode." Needs altered, "felt" isn't great wording and there are grammar errors. Also, for a topic sentence, it reads as being a bit biased (eg. repetition of "great").  Done (Reworded)
  • Excellent FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "the scariness of it being unseen" clunky, reword.  Done
• "pyschological" → "psychological".  Done
• "IGN" is italicised in some instances, but not others.  Done
• "Digital Spy" → "Digital Spy"
  • It should be italicised
    • Why? The Digital Spy article doesn't italicise it; it is a website, not a newspaper like Radio Times or The Guardian.
      • It's a news website, even if the news is only about pop culture
        • Pop culture isn't a part of the concern, it shouldn't be italicised as it isn't a published newspaper like the examples mentioned. Per MOS:NAT, a website, even a news-related one, is not considered a Major work of art and artifice, therefore should not be italicised. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • You are reading the MOS wrong, here MOS:ITALICWEBCITE- Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized
• The paragraphs are really short, despite all saying somewhat the same thing; combine 2 and 3, and 4 and 5.
  • Merged them differently
    • It looks good! FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

• Radio Times is not italicised in ref 9.  Done
• Citations are rather inconsistent.  Done
  • Ref 9 hasn't been cited properly. url and archive-url need to be differenciated.
    • What do you mean?
    • Fixed. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 doesn't wikilink Digital Spy and it is differently formatted to ref 17, which uses the same publication.
    • Done (they are formatted the same, the earlier refs has a shorter title)
• These types of sources are commonly removed, I strongly recommend archiving these.  Done

Spot check

• [9] a. Y b. Y
• [11] Y
• [14] Y
• [16] Y
• [19] Y
• [21] Y

Other

Something I forgot to point out, the article is very quote-heavy and that has resulted in Earwig's copyvio reporting over 70% in similarity. Try your best to paraphrase some of these.

It's not plag, someone copied the article. The actual plag is 16% and in green. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you saw this? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: responded. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: replied. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.