Talk:The Sontaran Stratagem

The Sontaran Stratagem has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 9, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Sontaran Stratagem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from The Sontaran Stratagem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 8,200 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Doctor Who episode "The Sontaran Stratagem" is the first appearance of the eponymous aliens since the 1985 serial The Two Doctors?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Continuity

Could the ATMOS constantly saying "turn left" have something to do with the upcoming episode with that name? I'm just noting it here incase it is! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but we cannot be sure until that episode has aired. — Edokter • Talk • 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO you think the Re-use of the Cyber-Conversion Frame and Mind probe props from Torchwood deserves a mention?82.22.144.78 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with a better memory and/or the DVD confirm my vague recollection that the bit about the female thorax is from "The Sontaran Experiment"? Daibhid C (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from The Time Warrior. Linx, the Sontaran, was questioning why Sarah had a different thorax, to which Irongron answered by saying that she was a woman. DonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst allowing Donna to use the TARDIS console controls, the Doctor refers to "making a dent" in the 80s, a reference to the manner in which the Doctor Who series was put in hiatus during that time. - i am pretty sure that the statement refers to the season 1 of revied dr who episode fathers day and not the show being on a hiatus. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of companions have actually "steered" the TARDIS, have they? The only other ones I remember doing it, other than Rose when she was inhabited by the vortex, are Adric and Nyssa. Type 40 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's just a joke about the Eighties decade, and how lame it was. Not entirely notable.Ray and jub (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 80s kicked ass! Peter Davison is the greatest Doctor ever.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or could be a Douglas Adams reference? --192.25.22.11 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thread seems to be veering off into a general discussion rather than a conversation about how to improve the article, could I remind people of our policy on this? Cheers! [youth-leader hat off] —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. I was done anyway. I know how serious you are and that you would never post unconstructive, snide comments on a page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of this article's section - the verifiable parts (previous encounters, dating controversy) are already mentioned, and the rest is veering on original research. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might be concerned. But a blanket statment of it being OR is not grounds for removing an entire section of diverse statements. For starters... the first item is cited from the BBC Doctor Who fact file... you can't get a better source. As for the others... with the exception of the UNIT acronym's meaning being changed (which you'll notice I took the liberty of removing the dupe) everything else is simply statements of occurences in a passive voice. Practically no opinions are given. Are there any item's in particular that concern you?--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 and 3 are mentioned briefly (plot and production). Medusa Cascade is borderline, and I'll try integrating it into production in the morning. Point 4 is OR, point 5 might be integrateable into the plot, point 6 is OR. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to be more specific at this point... do you mean point 4 and 6 before you removed a bunch of stuff or after (I realize they're probably wasn't even a point 6 after that but I'm just very confused now)? I have to go to bed before my wife divorces me... please give me 12 hours to respond... I'm not ignoring what you're saying but it can aford to have some discussion for a day. It's been up there for days already and, as I wrote... dozens of editors have already scrutinized thses items.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any resposne with more specificity. In particular, what about points 4 and 6 make them OR. I'll leave the tag up for a while to give you a further chance to respond.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, you keep reverting the info on the page regarding the history of Unit and the Sontarans but you refuse to say specifically why except for a generic statement that it is OR. Nobody else seems concerned with this sentence. Please give more detail.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a reference to The Last Sontaran, since it continues the storyline. --Kaleb.G (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salutes

The Colonel, though clearly portrayed as a member of the British armed forces, salutes whilst not wearing head-dress both the Doctor and Donna, something a British army officer would never do. More than this, he salutes the Doctor -- whom he says he is honoured to meet -- whilst the Doctor is not wearing a hat, which a British soldier wouldn't do because it puts the other in the uncomfortable position of not being able to return the salute. Probably just an oversight in the production, but it could signify all is not as it seems with this incarnation of UNIT. --Coconino (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the rules are different for UNIT, OR thats not exactly notible, but good try.--Wiggs (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Mace has read (or misread) UNIT's files on the Doctor as saying that the Doctor is of superior rank? Perhaps the Brig included a throwaway line that Mace misunderstood, or took too literally? Type 40 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

First, is this the first episode in which the Sontarans' home world is identified by the name Sontar? (It may sound obvious, but the Daleks don't hail from the planet Dalek, after all). Second question: is it worth noting that this is the third time this season that an element of The Two Doctors has been referenceds? Time Crash (which isn't officially part of Series 4 but will be on the Series 4 DVD) is the first multi-Doctor story since T2D, Fires of Pompeii was filmed outside the UK, the first regular series episode to be so produced since T2D was filmed in Spain (the 1996 movie was a movie, not a regular episode so it doesn't count), and now we have the Sontarans making their first regular series episode since T2D. Interesting coincidences. 23skidoo (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are non-notable original research IMO, if true. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Is anyone able to a section of this episode's reception? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article. Type 40 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left hand down

A possible reference to The Navy Lark, where Sub Lt. Phillips is always giving CPO Pertwee the navigational order "left hand down a bit". 68.103.9.71 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabriel, I'll be glad to take this review. Sorry you've had to wait so long for one. I hope to post comments on this in the next day or two... Mrs. Khazar and I have just reached this point in the series, so once we've watched it, I'll be reviewing. Thanks in advance for your work on it, Khazar2 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU! There is no problem to me to wait someone like you who certainly will do a great review. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind! More soon -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for waiting that extra bit. Mrs. Khazar gives both episodes 5 out of 5 stars, and I'm ready to do this review. On first pass, I only have a few minor concerns that I couldn't immediately fix. Overall, this looks strong; thanks again for your work on it. And let me know your thoughts on two minor points:

"joined a long line of mothers that don't get the Doctor" -- the source of this quotation should be clarified in-text--is this a statement by Doctor Who Confidential? Or someone they interview? I don't know how this show is usually structured.
"many stated Raynor improved from her previous episodes." -- "many" may be an exaggeration here--only one critic is explicitly identified as saying her writing improved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word "many" for "some", and I specified that the sentence was said by Tennant. It was in DWC; you can see on 39:35 here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~One quotation should be attributed in-text for clarity (see above)~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~One claim in the lead isn't necessarily backed up by the article (see above)~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA