Talk:Silence in the Library/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, who turned out the lights?

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

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

3. Coverage is broad areas but lacking in others.

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 no fair use media.

Lead

-Moffat's previous two parter is not mentioned in the body and needs citing.

• Need to look for citation, or wait for IA to be back up, will add then

-"It is also the final story that Moffat wrote before replacing Russell T Davies as head writer and showrunner starting from the fifth series in 2010." This is also uncited.

• Moffat taking over is cited in "Release"
  • My bad. Should be fine on this front, then. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

-"It was also nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)." Can probably cut the also.  Done

Plot

-"and financed by Strackman Lux, whose grandfather originally built the Library, arrives" Perhaps "and financier" instead? Makes the sentence flow better.  Done

-"River acts like she knows the Doctor" She does know the Doctor, though. I'd state this with a more factual tone.  Done

Production

-Hyperlink Weeping Angel.  Done

-" Later, he decided that this idea was too "dull", and instead opted to have one of them know him." While this is a fun line, it just acts as repetition of readers don't catch the nuance. Clarify exactly the difference between him knowing her and her knowing him.  Done

-The Squareness Gun is not acknowledged prior to this. I'd tweak the introduction to it slightly.  Done

-River Song being a recurring character is not acknowledged prior in the article body. I'd clarify this when you're discussing her later appearances.  Done

-Specify that Salmon's character is Dr. Moon.  Done

-I feel Casting is a bit light- where is the casting information for any non-Kingston member of the cast? Salmon is mentioned, but the other members should be as well.

• Might be able to squeeze some info(when IA is back), and copy some from part two.
  • Perhaps you could use this? [1] It's a primary source to my knowledge, but it does contain the main cast of the episode. If all else fails this source seems like it'd be a good fallback to use for casting information. There's also some BTS info links here, though I'm not sure if they're all used in the article already. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Copied content from the subsequent article, will add something else on that article later; does this look enough, or should I add more? (thanks for the info, will look into it later, will also help for other articles)

Reception and broadcast

-"On 16 May, just as in 2007, the BBC pushed Doctor Who a week further due to their coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 which took place on 24 May." This sentence confuses me on multiple levels. When did this happen in 2007, and for what purpose? Why was the episode pushed back a week when it was aired a week before the Contest? This needs some clarification.  Done

-Change "Russell" for "Davies," as it is strange for Davies to suddenly swap to first-name basis.  Done

-"However, the episode did receive an Appreciation Index score of 89 (considered "Excellent")," Reword to "The episode received an Appreciation Index..."

• This wording is used bcs the episode was well-liked while getting less viewers than usual
  • I remember there being some sort of policy on using comparison-based language like this, but I'm completely blanking on its name right now. It shouldn't be a big deal long term but keep this in mind regardless. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Reworded, so  Done

-"of tons of brilliant ideas" to "of several brilliant ideas"  Done

-"Simililarly, Patrick Mulkern of Radio Times praised the two-parter as a collection of tons of brilliant ideas such as data ghosts and flesh-eating shadows called Vashta Nerada on a planet which is also a library" This entire bit is just a person summarizing the plot of the episode. I'm sure there's actual critical commentary in the source, but this needs to actually be articulated instead of stating what the reader knows already.

• Changed somewhat, but honestly, the review was threadbare.  Done

-Remember to italicize company names like IGN and The Radio Times.  Done

-Is Zap2it a reliable source?

• From what I have checked, at least as much as any review website owned by a large company(also, replaced with the name of the actual website(TVOvermind) instead of the subsidiary which it comes under)
• Do you think it'll be better to just remove it?

-I feel Reception is a bit light- if you can, try and find some more sources, though I understand if this is all there is that this won't impact the final assessment.

• Added one, I'll look for more, but they are hard to find after so long
  • That's entirely fair. If you can't find anymore, it's not a huge deal, but I did wish to at least see if this couldn't be expanded a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • still planning to do a deep dive later, so might find something.

-As an unrelated note, could some images be included in the article? For instance, the Vashta Nerada have non-copyrighted images available for use, and Kingston's image could be used as well. These seem helpful for readers and help spruce up the article visually.  Done

Overall

-@DoctorWhoFan91: This article is shaping up to be good but needs some heavy work in places. I'll be placing this on hold for the time being to allow for work to be done on the article. Let me know if you need any clarification on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Pokelego999: Did most of the changes suggested, responded to others. Also, thank you for taking up this review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @DoctorWhoFan91: responded to some of your queries above. Excellent work so far. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    • @Pokelego999: responded to your responses. Thank you, excellent review from you. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

      @DoctorWhoFan91 I'd cut TVOvermind, since the source doesn't seem to have editorial standards and doesn't seem to require any major journalistic experience at a glance of their About page. Correct me if I am wrong though. Aside from that, I'll give you some time to add the additional info to the article. Let me know when you are done or if you have any further questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

      @Pokelego999: Removed, as it was not really important. You can do the rest of the review if you want, as any changes will be half-a para each in 'Casting' and/or 'Reception'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

      @DoctorWhoFan91 did a spotcheck for sources 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 21. They all verified their respective info. Though I couldn't access a few of them due to archive issues, I'm going to assume good faith with their contents based off the rest of the spotcheck. Everything else now is just down to the last few touches you need to make and we should be good to go. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

      Thank you, I'll be doing them in a day or two. Will notify you when I'm done. Thank you, it was a great review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)