Talk:The Sontaran Stratagem/GA1

GA Review

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

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