Talk:Terror of the Zygons

Comment

If the link says "The Doctor" then you would be expected to be directed to the Doctor article. What's wrong with "The Fourth Doctor"? --bjwebb 19:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment II

The footage used for the building in London is Millbank Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.90.10 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is it fair on the story to have the ropey & rarely shown Loch Ness Monster model as its main pic, when the titular Zygons would represent it more appropriately? PRL1973 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of image rights. If an image of one or more Zygons can be obtained where the licensing is as "free" as that of File:Skarasen.jpg, then it might be used. Otherwise, we stick with what we're permitted to use. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terror of the Zygons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404161042/http://babelcolour.com/other-dv/ to http://babelcolour.com/other-dv/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/1976/lochness/76loch.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Terror of the Zygons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one, the article seems very well written. I'll add remarks in an half an hour's time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• which was the first broadcast in four weekly parts→which was first broadcast in four weekly parts  Done
• ... and Harry Sullivan. It features the final regular appearances by Nicholas Courtney (as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart) and by Marter.→and Harry Sullivan, with the episode featuring Marter's and Nicholas Courtney's (as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart) final regular appearances. or any phrasing which lists Marter first  Done

Production

• Expand all three sub-sections, see Genesis of the Daleks#Production(GotD), not necessarily as long, but still need some expansion  Done
  • I don't see much expansion; is this the limit of info available about the production?
    • Yeah the references contain a lot of the same information over and over again. I'll try again and I may be able to squeeze out a little more content.
      • Try, but if there is no new info, that's okay; I'll still pass as is.

Broadcast and Reception

• Write the viewer numbers and add AI values in a new paragraph(see GotD). Done
  • Add something about the AI numbers?
• Para 3: the amount of parentheses look weird, consider removing the years, as they are not necessary  Done
  • ?

References

• Ref 3: Is Banks a typo of Barns, or is it not linked?  Done
• Ref 20: The SFX ref redirects, add usurped to status, so that .it links only to the archived version  Done
• Ref 21: A.V. Club ref is dead  Done
• Ref 27: Babelcolor does not seem reliable, find another ref  Done
• Per MOS: CONSISTENT, add wikilinks to all or none of the refs  Done
  • Ref 14, 18 and 19 are not wikilinked?

Overall

@OlifanofmrTennant: Article looks good, needs expansion in one section, and some minor changes. I'll do source spot-checking in my second read-through. It looks well on the way to GA. Good luck! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I checked the references, and see no issues; the above comments are all the ones I have. (P.S.- You haven't responded here, and your only edit to the GAN was 10 days ago; if you could communicate if it's business or if you need to find more sources, that would be good?) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been reletively busy. I'll wrap it up by the end of today Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

{{yo|I belive I should have fixed the noted issues. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Umm, you haven't; remarked on the issues left. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Questions? fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: replied to the production expansion remark; ping when you are done (if you think there is no new info, just ping me and I'll pass the article) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: hey, it's been a week, just a reminder (in the unlikely case you forgot; not because of the time span, I know GANs take time) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC) @OlifanofmrTennant: Passed the article; well done. Keep up the good work. 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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:
· · ·