Talk:Planet of Giants/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

I would add alternative text to the infobox image, and I believe the image caption should have a period since it is a full sentence.
I have a question about this part (are shrunk to the size of an inch after the Doctor's time machine the TARDIS arrives in contemporary England). Is "contemporary England" referencing England at the time the serial was originally broadcast or something else? I am uncertain if "contemporary" is the best word choice as it could be interpreted to mean other things. It may be better to clarify the time period with something like "1960's England" to be on the safe side.
For this part (he inspired by Rachel Carson's 1962 environmental science), I think you mean "he was inspired by".
For this part (with criticism praised at its story and characterisation despite praise for its ambition), the phrase "criticism praised at its" reads awkwardly to me, and I would replace it with something else.
I have never seen Doctor Who so this is more of a clarification question. I have a question about this part "teachers Ian Chesterton (William Russell) and Barbara Wright (Jacqueline Hill)". Are these Susan's teachers? If so, it may be helpful to add "her teachers" to clarify the character connections to an uninformed reader like myself.

Plot

For this part (The First Doctor, Ian, Barbara, and Susan consequently explore the vicinity), I would use the characters' full names since it is the first time they are introduced in the body of the article.
For this sentence ( In the lab, the makeshift bomb explodes in Forester’s face as PC Rowse arrives.), I am confused on what "PC Rowse" means.
It may be helpful to link "insecticide" since it is a big part of this episode.

Production

Everything looks good here.

Reception

Just wanted to clarify that aside from Hugh Greene's review and the Audience Research Report, there is not any other reviews of the episodes from around the time they were originally broadcast?

Commercial releases

Is there any further information about this sentence (It was the final First Doctor serial to be novelised.) like why it was the final serial to get a novel adaption?
The majority of novelisations were published in the 1974-90 period (see List of Doctor Who novelisations). Usually, the publishers concentrated on what were (at the time) recent stories, presumably because they were fresh in the viewers' memories and would sell better than those broadcast anything up to 25 years earlier. The older stories (such as this one) were fitted in when time allowed; I don't think that there was any sinister intent to this one being last - after all, something had to be the last one and the luck of the draw fell to Planet of Giants. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message. I was just curious about whether or not there was more background information on this and if it should be added to the article to give a larger context to it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add alternative text to the infobox image.

References

For Reference 19, I would not put the word "Review" in all caps per WP:SHOUTING.
The following book (The Language of Doctor Who: From Shakespeare to Alien Tongues) contains an interesting point on page five about this serial presents a specific characterization of the Doctor that differs from other serials. It could be helpful for this article.
This book (A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television) by John Kenneth Muir has some interesting commentary on this serial that could help the article.
The following sources may also be useful: Who and History: Critical Essays on Imagining the Past and Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who.

Final comments

I hope that this review is helpful. Excellent work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47! I've gone through and addressed most of your concerns. I believe the word "contemporary" is the most appropriate for the lead, as the story was set in the present day at the time. For clarification, Greene's review and the Audience Research Report are the only reviews from the time of broadcast; if I ever find others, I will always find a way to include them in the article. I appreciate the links to the books—I've added one of them, but I don't think the others have enough information for inclusion (though I'll certainly be keeping an eye on them for future stories!). Let me know if you have any other concerns. – Rhain ☔ 23:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I agree that "contemporary" should be fine for the lead since it should be pretty clear that it is referencing contemporary to the time of the serial's initial broadcast. Just thought it was something worth asking. And I hope that I did not pressure you to add any of the sources. They were more of suggestions/ideas than anything else as I am sure you have already done the required research prior to the GAN stage. I will ✓ Pass this momentarily. Great work as always. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]