Talk:Invasion of the Bane/ga1

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some of the plot is written in in-universe language: "Archetype", "butterfly-like alien species", "Bane ingredient", also instead of bluelinking "met a man" and "met by chance", these things should be explained or the actual links to the episodes themselves shown and described very briefly somehow.

2. Factually accurate?: No need for redlink for "Cook, Benjamin". I noticed many cites from gallifreyone.com. Could use some other variations in sources, to further assert notability. Mention in other books, newspapers, critical reviews, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. Broadcast, reception, and release - this should not be combined into one section, but each be separate sections, and each expanded upon. Also, a Production section is missing.

4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here, written in neutral manner.

5. Article stability? Passes here, article appears stable, no conflicts evident on talk page.

6. Images?: One image, fair use rationale given.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Archetype" was the name given to the character until the last scene, so it's like using "Kelsey", "Maria", or "Sarah Jane". I don't know how "butterfly-like" is in-universe either. The rest, however, are fixed. Will ^(talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redlink removed. Outpost Gallifrey is considered a reliable source and is more of a news aggregator. The same can be said about A Brief History of Time Travel. I don't recall any newspaper coverage; this was aired alongside how many films that day. I don't think it should be failed for that reason though.
Why shouldn't it? A GA in the same project passed with this section, and it's in the Wikiproject's style guide. And there is a production section.

Outpost Gallifrey is a "fan website". This article really needs some better sources, or else the article doesn't really assert notability or coverage in other secondary sources very well. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
My mistake, the Production section looks fine. But the Broadcast, reception, and release section should still be split up into separate subsections, and expanded. As it is, it's relatively terse. I will request a second opinion on the Review. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I made some minor corrections throughout the article when reviewing it, and I too think that the last section would benefit from being split up, but it wouldn't be required. However, the section should be expanded further. Is there anything more that can be said about the DVD (reviews, sales, commentary, bonus features, etc.) Also, it may be better to find another more reliable source for the release date, as the BBC Shop may be seen as spam. Can a source be added for the statement about the novel being released for the first time since the particular episode? If the section can be expanded any further, I don't see why it shouldn't pass if the above issues are addressed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that really annoys me is people doubting OG's reliability because it is a fansite. OG is very good for fact checking and accuracy. Look at their Canon Keeper's Guide, which cites about fifty people for fact checking and research. I've removed the DVD and book notes as there's lack of context. Finding more notes for reception is tricky though, because this was aired on New Years Day against Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. In fact, I've searched both OG and Google News for reviews, neither of which come up with any. Will ^(talk) 15:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing - No significant outstanding issues. Offering a second opinion. Passing. Huzzah. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]