Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/1

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)[edit]

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Endorse fail. The review was supported, and the article needs a good copyeditor. Geometry guy 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed because of

a (prose): b (MoS):

"Sorry, the prose is terrible"

Articles should really not be immediately failed on prose and MoS mistakes, especially trivialities such as accidentally leaving in an "and" or using "on" instead of "with" - proven by the fact it took me only nine minutes to fix the objections. As I've written GAs and FAs before, (hell, one episode passed FAC last week) I do know the quality of prose that's required for GA/FAs. Will ^(talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List, if I reviewed this article I would have put it on hold for these types of objections instead of immediately failing it. Tarret ^talk 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail Cursory glance reveals the following: 1) Per WP:EPISODE, plot summaries should not exceed 100 words per minute; plot section is currently ca. 829 words for 72 minute episode. 2) Per WP:FUC, “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary”. Both images used essentially only depict Doctor and Host and are not substantially different as to warrant both uses. 3) Some questionable sources including a blog. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "ten words per minute" guideline is rarely stuck to - in fact, only one episode featured article (and there are about a dozen) is below that, and that's tommorow's front page article, Through the Looking Glass (Lost). (and it's 822 words, which is still only 11 words/minute). Also, regarding the sources - Outpost Gallifrey's reliability has been proven again and again (if you don't believe me, check how many people they cite for fact-checking their canon keeper guides), and all of the blogs are hosted by UK newspaper sites, so they can be interpreted as professional reviews. Unless you mean the thing about News of the World, but that's there for context. In fact, the line after that said that Davies initially dismissed that rumour before Kylie confirmed and the BBC then publicly annouynced it. Will ^(talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FA reviews do not catch all policy violations; although other articles may not have been checked against WP:EPISODE, this one has and it is in violation. Number of people cited is not relevant unless those individuals can be established as reliable (i.e. experts in their fields as defined in WP:V). The same applies for the blogs; they are considered self-published works and, therefore, the authors must be established as being experts. If you can establish this, I will happily strike the concern. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the Doomsday FACs, two people actually asked me to shorten the plot from about 650 words. Even though the guideline said 450 words, neither had a problem with the 550 word version. With the blog cites, I told you why they're reliable - they're hosted by newspapers. How exactly does that differ from a column in that same newspaper? Besides, I really don't need to explain this - if it can pass through the fine toothcomb of FAC, it can easily pass through GAC. Will ^(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No editorial oversight. Verily, you needn’t explain anything to me. The choice between working with others or being dismissive and combative is one you’re free to make – and obviously have. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does one need an editorial oversight for an opinion? Will ^(talk) 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't. One needs it for that opinion to be considered a reliable source. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the reviews, all of them except for the Guardian Unlimited blog are carried by the newspapers themselves. For the Guardian Unlimited blog, the guy's well known enough to have a Wikipedia article. And he's been the newspaper's critic for eight or nine years. Will ^(talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List My concerns have been addressed. Please note the caveat, however, that GAR is meant to determine “whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed”. Despite the review’s failure to appropriately or adequately articulate concerns, issues warranting failure did indeed exist at the time; failure of the nomination, therefore, was not entirely inappropriate. In a nutshell, both the review and article were flawed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Welcome to Dr. Who month at Good Article Reassessment.

Will, I understand your point about failing the article versus placing it on hold. Some reviewers take different courses of action. In any case there were legitimate criterion #1 concerns which kept the article from passing outright. You may want to continue to sharpen the prose and address MoS concerns -- and then re-nominate the article.

I'm unsure of what to say about the length of the plot summary other than (a) it does seem long, given the article's length, and (b) guidelines on plot summary aren't always followed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a "plotectomy" - the plot summary is now under eight words a minute (574 words/71.9 minutes). Will ^(talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this: "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts", where he muses that he should use the phrase more often, particularly if he met someone called Alonzo, so that he could say "Allons-y Alonzo".[10]" be better suited for the Army of Ghosts article? -Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) +:The running gag does get uses a lot (definition of one, I suppose) during the third series. He actually does use the phrase "allons-y alonzo" in the episode. Will ^(talk) 11:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written, "where he muses", implies that the Allons-y Alonzo musings cropped up in Army of Ghosts, not in Voyage of the Damned. As such, all the Alonzo stuff would be better suited to Army of Ghosts, not here, and it should simply read "The Doctor also uses the catchphrase allons-y in the episode, a running gag originating in "Army of Ghosts".[ref]" -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List per above; the plot is definitely not an issue any more. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment. The article is improving, but still needs much work. The prose are better but aren't yet up to GA standards. Some examples:

The episode also includes several references to outside the show's fictional universe: Most notably, the episode is dedicated to Verity Lambert, Doctor Who's founding producer, who died a day before the show's forty-fourth anniversary. Why the capitalized "M" following the colon?
The scene in general had to be carefully manufactured due to health and safety concerns, in particular, some shots in the forklift truck needed a stunt double as Minogue did not have the adequate license. This sentence is complex and awkward.
The song is loosely based on the episode, from the captain's point of view regarding the Doctor. Not the sharpest of prose.

The article will pass GA if it has the benefit of additional copy editing. However, GA review isn't the best forum for fixing articles. Consider re-nominating after the issues are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail. What is it with Doctor Who episodes and convoluted prose? Yes, the reviewer could have put the article on hold, but "Sorry, the prose is terrible" remains an accurate review, and the examples listed by the reviewer are just the tip of the iceberg. (My apologies for not being able to resist the obvious cliche!) The prose issues begin already with the third sentence of the lead ("The episode introduces..."), which I had to read three times before I was able to parse and digest its content. The article is riddled with sentences which try to say three different things at the same time, and wind up being ambiguous, inaccurate or confusing. By the time I got through the plot section my head was spinning — and I watched the episode. The article really needs a good copy editor to go through it: see this guide for some tips.

On the other hand, in my opinion, the prose is essentially the only remaining problem with the article, apart from (perhaps) a few very minor examples of OR by synthesis (e.g., were the host "reprogrammed" or just "programmed"?). I'm sorry that this review is a bit brutal: good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 11:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? Will ^(talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still being edited. I endorse fail because there are too many grammar and punctuation errors, I understand it is only human to make mistakes but this article needs to be polished (literaly!) before it can go up for GA status again.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Have you thought about listing it at WP:LoCE? -Malkinann (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail - I would say this is a tough one to call, but overall, it is a fail. Problems pointed out by the reviewer should have been corrected and the article relisted at GAN, NOT GAR-which is put there for a reason folks!- Cheers. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Fail. The article is much better, but still needs additional copyediting and prose improvement. With a little work it will be ready for GA re-nomination. Majoreditor (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]