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

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have been bold and run through the text to correct all prose issues that I could detect. The article reads quite well and most of its content appears sound. Outstanding problems remain with MoS adherence:
     • The lead section could do with expansion — the second paragraph of the two present consists of in-universe detail, while one sentence (i.e. Such was the character's popularity within the series that when Ianto was killed off in the programme's third television series in 2009, it provoked much fan unrest and critical commentary.) seems insufficient for summarising such a detailed reception section at the end of the article. At least one additional paragraph could be added.
       • Done! It was tricky not giving anything undue weight simply because it required careful and/or specific wording, but I think I did a good job.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • "Creation" and "Conception" are rather synonymous — could one or other be used as the subsection title?
       • Fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Torchwood as a television series requires italics on each occasion that its name appears, including in titles of citations (e.g. reference 8).
       • Fixesd I believe (manual, no AWP luxury here).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • With regard to numbering individual seasons, the text frequently switches from upper to lower case. Is it "Series One" or "series one", for example? If capitalisation is used for series numbers, should it also be Children of Earth: "Part One" ("Day One"?), or something else?
       • Where it's used as "part one", "part two", that's not in violation. "Part One" would be incorrect, but I think a decision between Children of Earth, "Day Four" and Children of Earth: "Day Four" is purely stylistic as long as it is consistent. To that end, I've made it consistent apart from one usage in quote marks. Small case looks better.
     • At the end of quotations, punctuation is placed either before or after the quotation mark, with much variation within paragraphs. The positioning should preferably be uniform throughout the text. Quotation marks have been shifted from curved to straight in accordance with the guideline at WP:MOSQUOTE.
       • Going to AWP this tonight -- I think that should do a CU?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • I would recommend a thorough check of the list of references, in particular to ensure that dates are displayed in a consistent format — digits are used in most instances, although days and months are written out elsewhere (e.g. reference 25). Furthermore, since Torchwood is a British topic, the expectation would, in the event that dates are printed in full, be that months follow days (reference 36 does the opposite). Numbers 46, 56 and 57 mix the two, and the public reaction subsection in the main text uses month/day/year on three occasions.
       • Tonight with a print-out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     • Episode citations also throw up some inconsistencies (e.g. "BBC", "BBC Three" and "BBC Two" are all listed as broadcasters — the first option would be best). Linking production names/credits in each citation seems excessive: if linked once, and in the first instance of a particular name, the presention could be improved (e.g. Torchwood does not need formatting each time it appears). Parameters display as broken in references such as 3 and 4.

   • • With regards to the broadcast network, BBC3 and BBC2 and BBC One all say very different things with regards to production, content, reception, expectation, budget, etc.! That's why it has been made specific. I will amend all Children of Earth citations to read "BBC One", as we long since past the age of plain "BBC" and "BBC2".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • • Are page numbers available for references 26 and 30, in the manner that 48 (also from the magazine) has more citation parameters filled? Reference 31 uses different formatting, and abbreviations such as "W" (writer?) should ideally be written out in full. On the subject of internet sources (e.g. AfterElton.com), names of websites should appear unitalicised in citations. Domain names are used for some websites but not others (e.g. io9, Digital Spy, Wales Online) — again, a consistent method of presentation is desirable. Reference 37 would benefit from additional source information besides page title and access date.
       • Print outs for a clear look.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • All points are attributed if required, no original research, sources appear reliable. However, presentation of the sources (as noted in previous point) is a problem at this time.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • A range of in-universe, outside production and outside reception information is provided. No clear-cut cases of excessive or irrelevant detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The article strives for a consistent neutral tone, and the reception sections offer a balanced treatment.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Definitely stable.

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):

   • No problems here. The one fair-use image is necessary for identification as part of the infobox.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In terms of content, there are no problems that I can perceive. However, the reference list is in need of clean-up and the introduction would better meet the guidelines of the MoS with some lengthening — I do not think that the current lead text steps up to the challenge of outlining the whole of the article that comes after it, and with equal weight to all sections. Since the page is (I believe) close to GA standard, I will place this nomination on hold for one week. If clarification is needed on some of the points that I have raised, feel free to ask either at this review or on my talk page. SuperMarioMan 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I will get on them just as soon as I get work done here.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of the last figdety points is tonight.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is now greatly improved — a much better summary of the article's content. On the subject of capitalisation for series numbering, lower case indeed seems preferable given the standard used in the Doctor Who series articles. SuperMarioMan 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now put through those final edits!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article now reaches the standards, and as such am passing it. Congratulations! SuperMarioMan 12:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]