Talk:The Legend of Ruby Sunday

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Legend of Ruby Sunday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: reminder Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I've fixed most of the issues you left below, but left a few comments/inquiries in response to the remaining three. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I've wrapped up the rest of your comments. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No formatting issues here

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing is acceptable as far as I can tell

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing

Comments

• "UNIT" could use a gloss, I think, if one can be found that isn't too wordy  Done

  Possibly also in the lead, given that it's not too long right now?  Done

• "The group believe "S Triad" is an anagram of "TARDIS"" this isn't strictly a GA issue, but it's an odd sentence, because of course "S Tried" is an anagram of TARDIS; presumably what they mean is that they believe it's not a coincidence?  Done - slightly reworded it, the "believing it's a trap" that follows should also help to address this issue
• The plot summary in general leaves me with some questions; who is Rose Noble, why is the granddaughter's identity a mystery, who is Mel, etc. Some of this is inevitable, given that this is a very long-running show, but may I just ask you to read over it again looking to add clarity for unfamiliar readers?
  •  Question: As I said, the plot summary is already pushing it's MOS:TVPLOT word limit. The relevance of who Rose and Mel are, is explained within the casting section, and doesn't necessarily seem as relevant to the plot itself as the Doctor already knows these people (re: WP:PLCUT), it doesn't seem worth it to eat up words explaining who someone is that the Doctor doesn't meet for the first time for the first time. The same could be said for the grandaughter's mystery, as this is a season-long arc, there are additional details in the following episode article (where the identity plays an even larger plot) and the season article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It is indeed pushing the length limit, but there are some places you could lose words: I've made some cuts, feel free to revise them as you like.
      •  Done - Addressed Rose, Mel, and mystery you mentioned above.
• "After asking him questions, the Window" this is ambiguous as to who is doing the asking; the window, the vortex, something else?  Done
• "Some of these storylines also continued to explore that surrounding the Timeless Child" something is grammatically off here..also "Timeless Child" needs a gloss and/or link  Done - with link
  • I still don't understand the sentence: "Some of these storylines also continued to explore that surrounding the Timeless Child" explore what? could it be simplified to "...including ones related to the Timeless Child, which previous..."  Done - replaced "that" with "plot threads"
• " lidar or photogrammetry" bit confusing, as I understand it lidar is a special case of photogrammetry; you could probably drop "or photogrammetry"
  •  Question: - a quick google search says that "No, LiDAR and photogrammetry are different technologies for capturing data and creating 3D models" the source specifically says that they used "lidar or photogrammetry" rather than specifically specifying which one or if both was used TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • That's an LLM summary! Our article implies otherwise - and I'm not saying they're identical, but rather that Lidar can be considered an aspect of photogrammetry - but it's a minor point and if it's supported by the source that's fine. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      •  Done - removed photogrammetry
• Suggestion only: an image of Gatwa, or other actor, would be nice to have.  Done - Most of the time I prefer a member of the casting sections within episode articles, Bonnie seemed like the most relevant here.
• Most substantive concern so far: a lot of the sources are entertainment focused websites like ScreenRant, Mashable, Games Radar, and so forth that aren't necessarily unreliable but aren't the ideal backbone for an encyclopedia article. I accept that for a subject this new heavier-duty sources are scarce, but when available they should be used. The NYT has a piece, as does Vulture. I suggest doing another sweep for sources, and if possible, swapping out the entertainment-focused sources for mainstream media whenever possible.
  •  Question: I've worked on a number of GA's for Doctor Who including the ones for every other episode in this series, and this concern has never been brought up before by any of the other reviewers. It's an entertainment focused article so I feel it's to be expected. To me, that would be like saying COVID references too many medical focused websites or that Outer space has too many to NASA. Regardless, sources like Radio Times, Den of Geek, TVLine, IGN, and The Guardian are considered high-quality sources that have passed FAC's. Of the two articles you linked, Vulture is an also an entertainment focused website, so that wouldn't help solve this issue. Additionally, it's strictly a recap, it doesn't cover any production aspect nor does it include a critical review, so I'm not exactly seeing a use for it here. NYT is behind a paywall so I'm not able to view it, but considering "recap" is in the URL, I don't expect it to be much different. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I checked the New York Times and it's just a recap, theres nothing production wise Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the entertainment focus, it's reliability - ScreenRant, for instance, would never fly at FAC. This isn't FAC, of course, and I'm not going to fail this over the use of ScreenRant, but I do think that when better sources are available you should use them. I skimmed the ones I linked and while Vulture doesn't have any substance, NYT has a paragraph of review that I recommend working in. I quote: "This reveal is genuinely fear-inducing. But it’s the combination of Russell T Davies’s pacey, tricksy script and the show’s newly lavish production values that makes Episode 7 such a bone-chilling adventure — one far scarier, far more ambitious, than I expected from the show’s Disney era." This is in reference to the reveal of the villain.

   Done - Added the NYT source. For what it's worth, you're actually incorrect by the way, ScreenRant has two sources in an FA I wrote, they have a long track-record of reliability as well as transparency and a editorial policy.

  We list it as "marginally reliable" at RSP - it's use here is covered, so that's fine, but it's far from the best source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• The Vlinx isn't mentioned anywhere except the casting; a gloss would be useful.  Done - added to the casting just because the plot is pushing the word limit
• This article will benefit from being revisit as - presumably - more analytical sources will appear over time, but at the GA level this is fine as it stands, passing.

Spotchecks

I chose five random sources to spotcheck.

• Fn6: Checks out.
• Fn10: I might have missed where other members are encountered in The Devil's Chaos, otherwise checks out  Done - slightly edited for clarity, it was in reference to Maestro
• Fn17: I don't see where it mentions "a team returned to St Mary's Church in Nash, Newport", presumably the name of the location is named in other sources about that episode?  Done - added additional source that verifies the name of the location, the source already there verifies that they returned to said location
• Fn21: Checks out
• Fn36: Checks out

I'd say this is a pass, given that the issues are of detail that is likely supported elsewhere rather than OR, but please fix these issues and be on the lookout for similar.

• Earwig's tool flags people copying from Wikipedia, names/titles, and quoted material. I googled random sentences and found nothing concerning.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.