Jump to content

Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Intelligence

[edit]

@U-Mos, in order to avoid an edit conflict, I'm starting this on the talk page here. The source you're citing doesn't reference the face as being The Great Intelligence at all- it only states that Grant had previously portrayed the Intelligence in the past. The exact quote states

"Grant has appeared in Doctor Who in live-action before, playing Dr Walter Simeon in 2012 episode The Snowmen, and later The Great Intelligence, a faceless entity who assumed Simeon's image, in 2013's The Bells of Saint John and The Name of the Doctor.

There's no good reason for an image of Simeon/the Great Intelligence to appear alongside the Doctor's old faces, though – instead, Grant's holographic cameo in Rogue appears to be a nod to another previous association with the Whoniverse..."

They literally say outright that it's very much not the Intelligence, nor Simeon, and they follow this up by discussing The Scream of the Shalka in extensive detail. The Intelligence is not referenced again in the article, so I am very much confused as to where you think it says that the face in Rogue was that of The Intelligence. As it stands right now the way it's cited is blatantly incorrect based off of what is actually said in the source, hence my reversion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is in the absence of any further information this should be discussed in as literal a way as possible, i.e. there's a face among the Doctors, commenters have said it looks like Richard E Grant (read: we can't directly state it is), Grant has been in the show as the Great Intelligence and also played the Shalka Doctor (read: there's no information on the role that's being referenced). The omission gives undue weight to the interpretation of the RT writer, where its significance is to source the information of Grant's previous roles. The section shouldn't be mentioning how this has been interpreted at all - with expansion this could perhaps come into reception. U-Mos (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say. If you feel as though the Times writer shouldn't have undue weight on this, then we should perhaps seek out additional citations for clarification. Additionally, I don't see how recognizing someone and saying they've played previous roles is Reception, given they aren't really commenting on the episode itself at all. Do correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words, of course, since I may be misreading something that's dead obvious in your statement. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just noticed your edits since I have editing notifications not activated on this page. I see what you mean now, disregard the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick read of Grant's roles on his own Wikipedia page also brings up the fact that he played a version of The Doctor in the Comic Relief special "The Curse of Fatal Death" meaning that in addition to the Shalka Doctor, it may also be an easter egg to that live-action appearance, which is discussed in another RadioTimes article here https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-rogue-richard-e-grant-newsupdate/ . This probably isn't enough to change anything on the page since it's speculative (the authors of the article also suppose this isn't the case otherwise 'they would have put the other actors from that special', despite the obvious concept that doing so would have been egregious and distracting, antithetical to the point of easter eggs), but one wording might be "[a] some speculation exists that Grant's appearance is a nod to his roles as the Shalka and Concieted Doctors from TV and Web Series specials". This 'talk' is in the interested of being thorough, not fan-editing, so apologies if it comes off as the latter. EgoSnitch (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stealing music without acknowledgement

[edit]

All the other songs are identified in the Wikipedia article, so isn't it unfair not to give Astor Piazolla credit for Libertango? Stealing his music without acknowledgement? WordwizardW (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other songs have reliable sources, said sources do not exist for Libertengo (or if they do, I have yet to see it). The characters in the episode don't refer to it as Libertengo by Piazolla, nor was it included in the episode credits. Given that there are multiple versions of Libertengo (even multiple that Piazolla has been involved in given the collabs), we need a source explicitly stating that it was used. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source you are after is performances of the actual song Libertango by Astor Piazzolla. It is an incredibly famous piece and to deny that the melody of the music at 20:50 in the episode is Libertango is in plain denial of the facts.
I mentioned one single performance in my edit note - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MepPfI7ebMY - and that the melody heard at 20:50 in the Doctor Who episode can clearly be heard at 3:10 and 3:40 in that performance.
But since that one performance wasn't enough, there are thousands of other performances of that song on the internet in freely accessible places. Here is a small selection.
Should I go on? There are many more, and many by very famous people and groups. One of the above is by Yo Yo Ma.
And yes, the Grace Jones' interpretation is a derivative piece with added lyrics, but it is referenced in the Wikipedia article regarding Libertango and has the same melody from 1:01 in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIN3IE3DHqc
Just because only two "film expert" journalists (not music experts, I might add) haven't mentioned that the song is in the episode does not change the fact that it is undeniably Libertango. To argue from silence is a fallacious argument. To show proof in plenty of places that Wikipedia isn't prepared to acknowledge as reliable is not lack of proof of the truth of a fact. To say that every single proposition on Wikipedia must have a journalist's opinion to back it up would be the end of Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia doesn't allow reference to performances of a piece of music, whether on YouTube or otherwise, then Wikipedia needs to invent a mechanism to do so.
If this was a court, then the YouTube videos mentioned above would be overwhelmingly convincing evidence.
To deny the addition of this fact to this article is in plain denial of facts, and if Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism to verify those facts, then Wikipedia is faulty. Ozrygle (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I think it might be an easter egg that the Grace Jones version has the lyrics "I've seen that face before" and the episode refers to the enigmatic Susan Twist's face. This journalist almost quotes Grace Jones in their last paragraph, stating "But haven’t we seen her before? Yes, it’s the “face” of the killer med-bots from the “Boom” episode and the “mother” figure from last week’s “Dot and Bubble”." - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/doctor-who-rogue-review-recap-kiss-b2558573.html Ozrygle (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are YouTube links are reliable sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia has no way to reference music in comparison to another performance of the same piece of music, then that clearly means that Wikipedia is clearly broken. Ozrygle (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be considered a reliable source? I had nothing to do with this article. It is on a well-recognised Doctor Who fan site.
https://tardis.wiki/wiki/Rogue_(TV_story)
"This episode, like Bridgerton, contains covers of pop songs by the Vitamin String Quartet – Billie Eilish's "Bad Guy" when the Doctor and Rogue first meet, and Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" when Ruby overpowers and impersonates the Chuldur. Additionally, the string orchestra at the ball plays Astor Piazzolla's Libertango (composed in 1974) and Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik." Ozrygle (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozrygle You clearly need to delve into WP:V and WP:RS on what meets a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It needs to be a secondary source with an editorial background. User-generated sites, such as YouTube videos or Fandom Wiki's, do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. If you think that's wrong of Wikipedia, then that's unfortunate, but this is not the venue to change those policies. This isn't court. Do your research on the links I've provided on what's a reliable source, then come back here to discuss it. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your power trip! Ozrygle (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozrygle I am attempting to help you understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies, so you don't keep making the same mistakes. If you are not here to be collaborative, then you can go edit fan-based Wiki's like the above one you linked; you will not find support for your user-generated content here. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing that was user-generated about my content. I cited official recordings by a number of highly reliable and official sources of Libertango, a multi-award winning piece of music that is played by multiple official sources. Far more reliable sources than an article by someone on Collider who looks like she just graduated from High School.
Are you questioning the validity of the following factual sources? Where is the user conjecture in these?
All of these are official YouTube channels of mainstream organisations and mainstream musicians. There is nothing user-generated here. They are all internationally recognised performers or groups or labels. They are all entitled "Libertango". They all have the same main refrain from the original piece at the times that I have indicated. This is the same refrain the appears in the Doctor Who episode at 20:50, when the Doctor and Rogue dance.
What else would convince you? Some more verifiable websites?
Now the only thing is to listen to the performances at the times I mentioned, and compare it to the Doctor Who episode at the time I mentioned (20:50 on). You would have to be absolutely deaf to not see the likeness between the recordings of this quite distinctive melody line.
Alternately, could I upload a short audio clip from both the show in question and from the original studio recording - I have seen many other pages do this on Wikipedia. Ozrygle (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way saying I'm not here to be collaborative or "build an encyclopaedia" is twisting everything completely backwards.
I merely tried to put in a fact that is pretty obvious if you listen to the song. I tried to be a good collaborator, and I just faced pure negativity.
I was very careful to reference exact time markers in the episode and the song versions I linked to. I have never tried to push an opinion. I am note spouting conspiracy theories or untenable interpretation, just to say "this refrain happens in this song, and also in this song". I can't believe that you guys won't even state, "Well yes, I can see your point, but your citation needs more work" (or even "sorry I can't see your point), rather than assuming bad faith on my part (which you all have absolutely implied, including stalking me to other articles). If you were truly here to build an encyclopaedia, you would have spent less time trying to delete something and tear me down than actually saying "let's see if there is a truth to this". Ozrygle (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the piece starts playing at about 25:10 in the episode, and the main refrain from about 25:30, continuing until about 26:50. In other words, this piece of music is playing for almost two minutes of a 46 minute show, which includes credits and all. It is not an insubstantial piece. It is a famous piece. To toss it aside in the face of what I have attempted to show would demonstrate to everyone that the gatekeepers of Wikipedia are not interested in collaborating or building an encyclopaedia. Ozrygle (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing the music and assuming it's a certain piece is clear WP:SYNTH. You also can't combine sources for the same reason ("listen to the official track and then listen to what was used in the episode and you'll see it's the same"). It's not common knowledge, and musical artists commonly sample the work of others which is why using the episode itself is not reliable. If there were a reliable source that includes this information, any of us would be more than happy to add it back in. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least making an attempt to talk with some humanity. It is a far cry from the treatment I have received so far over this, and many times before on Wikipedia, which would mainly be described as downright spiteful where I come from. Accusations of not wanting to collaborate are a really below the belt tactic and frankly, bullying. Stalking someone to another article are a low tactic. And the people who display this behaviour always try to make others out to be the bad guy. Thank you for a momentary change from that.
I cannot see how I have tried to combine or synthesise anything. Have any of my detractors actually listened to any of the versions of the music I posted? It is plain as day as it is a very strong melody. I tried to put two sources side by side, to show a clear A/B test, not to combine anything or say A + B = C. I'm saying A = B. And if you listen to the music, it is most recognisable by the main refrain, which most people recognise because of the 1981 Grace Jones lyric's melody line, but the whole build up of the original 1974 piece is there from the 25:10 mark in the episode exactly as in the original piece, coming to a crescendo with the main melody line from the original that Grace Jones just happened to make even more recognisable in 1981, which is why I and others knew of that before knowing of the original version.
To say that I am trying to synthesise or combine two different things or points of view together is like saying I don't know how to recognise a VW bug or a Toyota Corolla, or that someone has blue eyes. I am saying A is a VW bug, and B is also a VW bug. A=B.
I still also don't get how all the official channels of artists on YouTube are declared as unreliable as sources because they were user-generated, when the links I provided were mostly official links to officially performed and released performances of the same piece of music. That is a completely different argument to stating that I have synthesised material, which has only just become the argument - I have however shown that a bunch of other people agree, and some of them are from published sources, which should be reliable, even if many of them are not from published sources that are subjected to .
The reason I chose YouTube was because there is little point quoting a source that nobody can refer to without a paid account, although Apple is authoritative as a source and anyone can listen to a preview of a track.
And if it's about authoritative opinions published by a source using editorial processes, then how is the Bleeding Cool article any different from Collider quoted as the (sole) source for a bunch of facts in the same paragraph? How can we trust what Collider said since they didn't mention where they found out their facts? And if we can trust Collider, then the published article in Bleeding Cool made the same inference with the addition of the song I mentioned. And it is an entirely reasonable assumption to make because 2 minutes of music from a 46 minute episode in a show that has clearly done the same thing with at least two other songs in the style of a show that is referenced in the episode is not a long shot. But Bleeding Cool made the argument. And Melbourne Australia radio station 3RRR made the same argument. Are they reliable as in "published" by "a secondary source with an editorial background"? Ozrygle (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:TheDoctorWho#Doctor Who - Rogue - Music

Hi there,

I understand that you deleted my reference to "Libertango" by Astor Piazzolla because you thought that the references weren't valid, however it does not change the fact that the music is in the episode.

If you watch the episode at around 20:50 and onwards while the Doctor and Rogue dance, you will hear a piece of music being played. It is the same as 3:40 in this performance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MepPfI7ebMY - which is a performance of Libertango by Astor Piazzolla. I recognised it because there was a well known cover by Grace Jones in the 80's, which I first incorrectly referenced, however even though I cannot find a journalist who mentions it, the piece is unmistakably Libertango.

I don't really care but I would think that people who are as interested in Doctor Who as you seem to be would care to know a relevant fact about the episode. It is not as if all facts on Wikipedia are required to have a reference, and yes I possibly did overdo it with unreliable references because an earlier edit removed my edit for having no references, however one only has to listen to a few seconds of the episode and a few seconds of the relevant piece to realise that it is in fact the piece, regardless of whether a notable source has realised as such. It is probably that there are precious few references to any of the music in the episode and that the person who wrote the single article that does reference the other pieces mentioned was not alive in the 1980s and had no clue that the piece being played was in fact quite famous. This does not, however, change the fact that a simple listening to the piece with reference to the music in the episode demonstrates clearly that it is in fact the piece played.

As I said, I don't really care for petty edit wars, and this is about the most petty and pointless edit war ever and doesn't speak much for the character of those who are waging it, but the facts are undeniable. That clearly demonstrates a failing on the part of the two people who chose to bury an undeniable fact because they believe that facts are not important. It also demonstrates that Wikipedia lacks appropriate mechanisms for referencing pieces of music that work without a teenage journalist having to have knowledge of music before the year 2000.

So, if you actually care about facts, perhaps you could find a way to leave this fact in the article. I don't personally care that my edit that pointed to an undeniable fact was cut out, but you need to choose whether you care about facts at all. Your actions so far say otherwise. Ozrygle (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you could keep discussions centralized on one place, rather than creating the same discussion in multiple places. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I did not realise that it was best to stick to the article's talk page. Since I realised that I have evidently done that. I do not claim to be an expert on Wikipedia etiquette and I think the extremely abbreviated messages left with reverts are just confusing to non-experts. I had to google who and how to "talk".
I find the complexity of Wikipedia turns off benevolent contributors. It acts like an extremely high barrier to entry and, to be honest, I have seen many people seem to take delight in that. It does not help that even editors who seem to be trying to be more collaborative speak with such brevity that it can seem quite terse or abrupt. This is destructive to community and collaboration.
It especially comes across as pejorative, nasty and downright unproductive and destructive to community and collaboration when someone such as myself who has a record of small edits that are mostly about correcting minor grammar and adding citations (99.9% of which are not YouTube or forums, but solid journalistic articles) gets accused very directly of not being collaborative. To assume and verbalise this is basically stating that I have or had malicious intent is a massive red flag because all I did was try to state something that the person on the street would see as plainly obvious. Ozrygle (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that people are issuing personal attacks against you. However you've repeatedly ignored the advice handed to you Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed be a benevolent contributor, but you are beholden to the same policies the other ~117,000 editors on this website have to abide by. You've been explained that your edits do not confirm with those policies; you can argue that as much as you want (which is what the primary issue here is), but it is simply a fact. Editors here have tried to give you genuine advice on how to proceed with this apparent issue properly, but you have not taken it on, and simply argued. Just because you have added 99.9% valid citations, does not mean you can add 0.1% unreliable sources. However, this discussion has now apparently moved to conduct rather than content. If you have an issue with the way editors act, please discuss it at the correct venue. This talk page is to discuss the content of this article: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rogue (Doctor Who) article, per the very top of this talk page. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lie.
Editors have accused me of being uncollaborative, which is a lie. It is so far from the truth that it is not funny. It is an insult dressed up in policy names, but my track record on Wikipedia shows exactly the opposite.
I would say that I have talked, in a spot called "talk". Yes I have used arguments, but so have others, as any attempt to put forward a position is technically an argument, and what a talk page sets out to achieve implies the use of arguments, however just the *fact* that I went against the establishment by daring to have a position that something that is factual is being ignored is a big mark against my name apparently. I have talked about other issues as they pertain to improving this article, but I have certainly not gone wildly off topic. I have not been incollaborative, I have not been nasty, I have not ignored advice. I simply kept asking; is this reliable, and if not why not?
Why is there a talk page if you are saying that people cannot talk? That is all I have sought to do.
It seems to me that the "advice" given was also to some extent about turf-guarding, since the arguments from editors went from 1. no references to 2. too many references to 3. YouTube is not reliable (which is completely untrue, it is just that some parts of YouTube are unreliable and others are reliable, just like any communication medium) to 4. I am trying to synthesise things that are as plain as the nose on your face to 5. it is just not notable.
You have clearly *chosen to ignore* that my arguments has also progressed.
Something significant that has been ignored in my last several posts is, is the article I referenced on Bleeding Cool reliable? It is a published article from a publisher owned organisation that (according to Wikipedia) has received multiple awards for the quality of its work and that has many renowned writers, and that according to the website itself has a strong editorial team and process. How is this website any different from Collider in reliability? And what about the radio station in Melbourne? Is a radio station journalistically reliable?
In the end, you are choosing to not make Wikipedia a better place, which means it doesn't matter what the quality of citations is like or what the quality of an article is. You have displayed destructive behaviour. Ozrygle (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again accusing others of bad faith. I find it interesting you keep claiming personal attacks yet you keep saying others people are at fault. Additionally it isn't a lie every time so far that someone gives you a comment or a guideline you drop a long 1000 byte comment which despite its length rarely addresses the point Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what if my posts are long. Is that problematic. Isn't this a talk page?
You have all still not answered the questions I have asked several times. And then you reprimand me for pointing out that you have not answered them.
Is the Bleeding Cool article reliable when it states that Libertango is the piece? https://bleedingcool.com/tv/doctor-who-s01e06-rogue-reminds-us-that-love-is-universal-review/
Is the 3RRR radio show reliable when it says the Libertango is the piece? https://www.rrr.org.au/explore/programs/zero-g/episodes/29605-zero-g-10-june-2024 - listen from 11:30. And yes it is the Grace Jones derivative, but Wikipedia clearly draws the link on Astor Piazzallo's page.
And how about https://elfederalnoticias.com.ar/dr-who-en-ritmo-de-tango-a-lo-bridgerton/? Yes, it's in Spanish, but the Argentine Federal Press clearly see that Libertango is the piece. Is that reliable? Ozrygle (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of my detractors actually listened to any of the versions of the music I posted? It is plain as day as it is a very strong melody. I tried to put two sources side by side, to show a clear A/B test, not to combine anything or say A + B = C. I'm saying A = B. That is WP:SYNTH. You are connecting two sources to say they're the same thing. You're saying "this is a song performed", and "this is a song in an episode", then "these are the same thing, so this song was definitely used in this episode".
What we are asking for is not that hard. Find a secondary editorial source that explicitly states that this exact music was used in this episode, and it can be added to the article. How hard is that? Is there a reason you cannot do that? At least attempt to answer this one question in your next response, please.
It is probably that there are precious few references to any of the music in the episode Then it's not notable. It's amazing that you've gone and found this great piece of music, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable observations.
Also, the above comments of It is not as if all facts on Wikipedia are required to have a reference shows that you have zero understanding of WP:RS and WP:V. I told you - read those and you will understand why your YouTube sources (which are user-generated, because anyone can upload to YouTube, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia) are not being accepted. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is puzzling, however, that the notability argument is only now being mentioned. Part of the reason that people are not talking as much about the story or other elements such as even story analysis, costumes, setting, is that they are talking about the kiss and the gay messaging. Yes, the most notable thing about this episode will now always be the kiss and the "scandal". It must be noted that the editorial processes behind many articles that are talking about this episode are about click-bait headlines, which are more about scandal and "what will sell", which is a terrible decider of notability. It is also puzzling that Billy Eilish is seen as particularly notable while a great classical composer is not.
To say I have "zero understanding" is a bald-faced attempt at insult dressed in rules and regulations and is a pejorative, harmful and destructive way to talk. Do better! It seems that this stems from my attempt to discuss what does and does not correspond with Wikipedia policies, and it seems that you find it offensive that someone might have the temerity to ask questions and not be an expert.
To say that YouTube is unreliable in and of itself is a fallacious argument. It must be asked, can official groups post on YouTube that represent an official statement of fact that may be considered "a secondary source with an editorial background"? The answer must be yes. Certainly in many cases YouTube videos are pure conjecture and certainly in many cases videos are not able to be seen as "a secondary source with an editorial background", however this can be the case for any medium. Can I trust videos by the BBC or the government posted on YouTube to be "a secondary source with an editorial background"? To say no is just indefensible. Can I trust that Yo Yo Ma is truly playing the same piece that he has entitled his video? Of course.
Beyond that, I have now provided at least two links to an article and a podcast that I was at pains to demonstrate are "a secondary source with an editorial background", and asked for confirmation or denial of whether these are up to par. From what I can see Bleeding Cool article I have referenced above, along with a page that indicates their editorial structure, is on a very similar level to the Collider article quoted to justify the Billy Eilish et. al reference. According to Wikipedia it seems that Collider (website) was a one person blog until about 2015 before it became a proper journalistic venture. According to Wikipedia, Bleeding Cool is of a very similar ilk, having started only four years after Collider, but being owned by a publishing organisation since its inception. The article on Bleeding Cool has mentions of its award wins, and a long list of writers. I pointed out the editorial structure page mentioned on the Bleeding Cool site. I see very little difference between the two sites. I am yet to receive a reply about the perceived reliability of that article, and I asked.
Perhaps this whole thing is about notability, and to be honest I agree. Wikipedia is not really notable. Ozrygle (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've literally got better things to do in the real world than deal with your WP:WALLOFTEXT. WP:DEADHORSE, I ain't falling into it. Wikipedia not notable? Move on then. Peace. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source?
The violin soloist Jonathan Hill who videos himself recording various TV music pieces, including for Bridgerton and Doctor Who.
"This time @bbcdoctorwho Season 14 episode 6 ‘Rogue’ where I end up on the dance floor of a very @bridgertonnetflix world, performing a fantastic arrangement of #piazzolla #libertango"
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8Dp6hZo2I9/ Ozrygle (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in case you're wondering - https://soundbetter.com/profiles/459066-jonathan-hill Ozrygle (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 11:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one, it has been sitting here for weeks! Most of my edits have been regarding Doctor Who, so I'm looking forward to reviewing this one. Expect remarks in 6-7 hours. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • It was simultaneously released on Disney+ in the United States on 7 June 2024 and on BBC iPlayer in the United Kingdom on 8 June. It was also broadcast the same day on BBC One. → It was simultaneously released on BBC iPlayer in the United Kingdom and Disney+ in the United States and everywhere else at 2300 UTC (US-7 June, UK-8 June). It was also later broadcast the same day on BBC One. Mention iPlayer and BBC One together and Disney+ after to make sentence less confusing  Done

Plot

[edit]
  • accidentally interrupts a love confession between her and another man. Ruby comforts Emily → bit confusing, add failed love confession or something better  Done
  • believing him to be a Chuldur → believing him to be a Chuldur (because the Doctor is a shapeshifter)  Done

Development

[edit]
  • Ref-7: Redirects without subscription, remove or find a better reference —links to the episode itself  Done

Filming

[edit]
  • Reduce references in first line from 6 to 3-4  Done
  • Reduce ref in third line from 4 to 3  Done
  • Add ref from fifth line to fourth line as well, or turn them into one line.  Done

Broadcast and Ratings

[edit]
  • Reformat everything except the last line similar to the lead.  Done
  • Add consolidated ratings as well as references of any upward/downward trend.  Done

Critical Reception

[edit]
  • Reformat the paragraphs: one about similarities to other shows or previous episodes; the second about the Chuldur and the rest of the episode  Done
  • Expand the section, add a couple of lines from 2-3 of the reviews  Done

References

[edit]
  • Ref-7 as mentioned —links to the episode itself  Done
  • Ref-14, 20, 21, 24: Not an issue, but replace with text sources wherever possible — no text sources  Done
  • Ref-16: Looks like a fan-site, change (or delete)  Done
  • Ref 18, 19, 38: There have been discussions about the reliability of CultBox, but most DW articles use it, so I'll leave it to you if you wanna change them or not — we'll see to it if it becomes a issue later on  Done

Result

[edit]

The article looks in good shape, just needs a few minor changes and slight expansion. Looks almost certain to pass, best of luck — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on what's doable soon, but I do feel that a number of these aren't. Ref 7 for example, requiring a subscription is not a valid reason to remove or replace a source. That's why the field exists within {{Cite episode}}. This is a basic Wikipedia policy and can be seen at WP:PAYWALL, specifically the part that reads, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment [...]". Regarding your third point in the filming section, the number of lines a person views on any page can vary based on device, screen size, zoom, font size, and skin. This means that while you may see five lines, another person may experience six or four lines. The Good Article Criteria specifically state that content "must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph", a requirement which is met here. This one may be up for debate, but I'd also question if getting specific enough to mention the time and time zone that the episode release would be a violation of Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Four other articles from this season, as well as ones from numerous other seasons, have passed through the GAN process without requiring this information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tell me what exactly ref-7 links to, and I'll take your word for it. If it's just the episode or something like that, then that's fine. By line, I meant from period to period, I should have made that clear. Yes, you can cite at the end of the paragraph, that's not what I brought it up; it was confusing if you forgot a reference or meant both sentences to have the same reference- every period in that section is followed by a reference other than that one, so it feels more like a forgotten reference. Yes, the article does't need a time or time slot, but the original sentences were a mess; mention BBC iPlayer and BBC One first and simultaneously in the US second, like the other four GA articles that you mention do(the ones from before weren't a UK-US co-production and only needed the UK release date). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewing instructions say the reviewer can be bold and make some changes for minor issues, so I did. Expand and reformat ratings and critical reception and the article will be good enough to be a GA. See Boom (Doctor Who) for what length would be good. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Result

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. 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):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Congrulations, Rogue (Doctor Who) fulfills the Good Article criteria and is passed. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogue_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1246281346"