Talk:The Web Planet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 02:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Pipe science fiction television to Science fiction on television.
Pipe BBC1 to BBC One.
Pipe bull ants to Myrmecia (ant).
Pipe free enterprise to free market.
Pipe stock music to production music.

Production

Pipe bull ants to Myrmecia (ant).
"unearthly musique concrète performances" - How were they unearthly?
"Moving house" does not sound encyclopedic. Same with "was on holiday" and "took around 30 minutes to don."
Pipe free enterprise to free market.
Pipe suits of armour to plate armour.

Filming

Pipe BBC Television Film Studios to Ealing Studios
"to accommodate for Hill's holiday" - What holiday?
"Fifteen bags of seaweed from Cornish Manures were requested for the fourth episode" - Why were they requested?

Broadcast and ratings

Pipe BBC Television Centre to Television Centre, London
Pipe BBC1 to BBC One.

Critical response

Pipe good versus evil to good and evil.
Pipe The Stage and Television Today to The Stage
Didn't should be did not.

Commercial releases

VHS doesn't need to be linked as a common term.
DVD doesn't need to be linked as a common term.
Pipe BBC DVD to 2 Entertain.
Pipe BBC Audio to AudioGO.
Pipe vinyl record to phonograph record.
Pipe Demon Records to Demon Music Group.
Pipe Frederick Muller Ltd to Hutchinson (publisher).

Notes

Stock music doesn't need to be linked again.
Pipe Les Structures Sonores to Baschet Brothers.

Discussion

@SL93: Thank you for your review. Just a quick response to some of your comments:

Piped links are unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKE.
I'm not entirely sure what part of "took around 30 minutes to don" you find informal.
"Didn't" is part of a direct quote.
The duplicate link to stock music is permitted per MOS:DL, as it is part of a footnote.

I've addressed the remainder of your concerns. Please let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ 04:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: It’s not that it’s informal, but that don is an old-fashioned word that isn’t used much and may not be understood by some readers. I won’t argue with you if you don’t want to change the wording due to it being correct. Sorry about the “didn’t” issue - I mixed up articles that I was reading today. As for the redirects, I was basing it off of other GA reviews and I now see that those were just nitpicking. SL93 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: I don't disagree that it's a tad old-fashioned, but I'm struggling to think of an alternative; I'd prefer the slightly outdated "don" than something as informal as "put on" or "get into". If you have any better suggestions, please let me know. – Rhain ☔ 10:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: You have a good point. I will pass this GA this evening. I'm heading out the door now for work. Sorry about there being a wait. SL93 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: No need to apologise. Thanks again for the review! – Rhain ☔ 13:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed