Talk:Mel Bush/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Expect remarks in a few hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go section by section. (P.S. I'm thinking of nominating Forest of the Dead again, would you like to review it?)

Images

~~Any free images from the recent episodes, maybe?~~
- I'd have to do some digging for that later but I can't guarantee there will be either way. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't hold it back from GA if there isn't
    - At a glance, nothing else. There might be something, but that'd require going through their entire video catalog, which is something I don't have time for.

References

All fine

Lead

All fine

Character biography

~~Is there nothing to say of the six stories between her debut and departure?~~
- I summarized them mostly because it would just be restating each episode's basic plot. Mel doesn't have a very big role in any of them akin to her modern appearances and summarizing the episodes again here would just bloat the plot unnecessarily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - there must be some common elements, like whatever the polite version of "damsel in distress" or ""crybaby" that distracted from more important stories" is
    - nothing here too?
      - Sorry, just wanted to double check what I had. The sources don't really give a particular highlight to specific episodes, and mostly focus on era-wide personality. I did not include it in the plot section out of concern that this would be too opinionated, as the audience reaction to Mel's role feels more fitting in the development reception. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development

change "meeting" to "first meeting" in the first para, twice Done
- Umm, Pokelego999? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~is more about her development than "no character arc"~~
- What do you mean? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - forgot "there no" between "is" and "more"
    - I included all I could find. I'm sure there's offline books with information that I could add, but they're things I can't access nor say that they have any more coverage in with any degree of certainty. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(this goes for the above section too) anything to say about her Big Finish appeareances? maybe just a sentence or two at least~~
- Nothing more that I could find. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Mel's character was ... a better person.: Make into two sentences, it's a long sentence Done
~~Any other site which talks about Mel, if it can be added?~~
- This is everything I could find. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~A sentence or two about the reception of her Big Finish appearances, similarly, at least 2-3 sentences for her NuWho appearances, perhaps~~
- There is no ability to expand this with what sources exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

Checking every 5th ref

Ref-1: show the Doctor meeting Mel for the first time ... The Sixth Doctor regenerated in the first scene of Season 24 ... Bonnie Langford would appear alongside a new Doctor ... not get to see her meeting the Sixth Doctor.
Ref-6: Mel is investigating ... Triad Technology and its leader Susan Triad (not the best source, but other GAs have passed despite it)
Ref-11: didn’t even return for a final regeneration episode, it wasn’t possible to cover his meeting with Mel.
Ref-16: Bonnie] decided she couldn’t take it anymore ... She decided to leave.
Ref-21: She said: "[Mel] felt she had to stop travelling the universe and actually, literally, get back to down to Earth and face the things she's been running away from."

Overall

I'll go in detail later, but please make the paragraphs smaller. They get harder to read the longer they are. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: I didn't think they were that big to begin with, but it seems you've already resolved this. I'll take a look for potential free media when I'm home, but let me know if anything else needs to be done.
- Maybe I just have a lower attention span^[Joke]. Feel free to revert them if you like, I just thought this would be faster than discussing it
I'm also down to review Forest of the Dead if you need it.Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I'll put it up for review soon. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Put it up for review just now. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the review, Pokelego999. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @DoctorWhoFan91: responded to your above comments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Responded, one change remains in the lead. Will pass after it is done and after a second read-through. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoctorWhoFan91 Sorry! Missed that one. Fixed, let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing comes up after a second read-through and a spot-check, passing to GA. Well done, more or less the best the article could be with the sources that are available. Congratulations, Pokelego999, keep up the good work. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·