Talk:Vislor Turlough/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

Image

• Suitable FUR is provided.

Copyvio check

• Match from oldmooresalmanac.com/the-mysterious-dry-lakes-of-ireland (2019) is a backwards-copy. (I looked at the last article version of 2018)
• the famousfix match is likely a backwards copy too.
• No other matches over 5%, I browsed a couple and had no concerns.
• No issues identified during spot checks.

Sources

• I'm a bit concerned whether the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club source is appropriate. Can you convince me? Otherwise I can probably get hold of Doctor Who Magazine issue 227 and see if that supports the material.
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: One of the interviewers is a member of the site, and later mentioned this content a bit here: https://doctorwho.org.nz/archive/tsv45/dwm.html. The interview was originally conducted by him and another person and published on the website, and seems to be the original publication of the interview in this case. In terms of authenticity, the actual event itself does seem to have occurred, even if it's obscure, and the official Magazine later taking content from their interview also seems to verify its authenticity. Given this is the interview's original publication, and its content is verifiable, it should be fine to use per WP:ABOUTSELF. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • WP:ABOUTSELF has "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" - but the interview was not published by Strickson. Were you thinking of WP:SPS? That warns that "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I've looked into this a bit more. TSV had editorial oversight and Scoones is a published author on the topic. I've checked that Scoones and Preddie are credited in Doctor Who Magazine issue 227. So I think, on balance, this source is OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• the other sources look appropriate.
• The article title for the Fantasy Empire source is actually "Hungry Look"
• Some of the book refs had multiple dates. I've removed these, but you may prefer the full dates to be restored for Muir and Huff, which would be fine.
• The Huff citation was incomplete. I've amended it, please check if you're happy with it.

Character history

• "is contacted by the malevolent Black Guardian, who offers to take him back to his home planet Trion if he kills the Doctor." - worth adding that he accepted? (I assume he did.)
• "Despite Tegan and Nyssa's suspicions," - maybe they should be described as companions here, to help readers who aren't very familiar with the series? It's hard to know the right balance between adequate explanations and making the section too long. another example is "the TARDIS crew" - it's linked, but should more explanation be here too? We shouldn't expect readers to have to click through links to understand the text.
• joins in the race to obtain the titular "Enlightenment" and sought to obtain it." - "and sought to obtain it" feels redundant.

Development

• Spot check on material sourced to Doctor Who: The Companions in the first para - no issues.
• "Jan Evans, had also recommended" - shouldn't the "also" be removed?
• Spot check on material sourced to Doctor Who: The Companions in the second para - no issues.
• Spot check on "He disliked the filming of the episode Terminus due to its atmosphere and because the amount of crawling Strickson had to do resulted in his costume's trousers becoming worn out." - no issues
• Spot check on "According to Strickson, Turlough was very "socialist – an interplanetary thinker, a freedom fighter." Many of the character's political speeches were cut." - no issues
• " which Strickson stated was part of why he left the series,"/"According to Strickson in an earlier interview with Fantasy Empire," - maybe add the years? " which Strickson stated in 1990 was part of why he left the series,"/"According to Strickson in a 1985 with Fantasy Empire,"

Reception

• Spot check on the material cited to Muir - no issues.
• Spot check on the material cited to Decker - no issues.
• "The book Who is Who? found the Doctor's role" - suggest mentioning Decker here ratehr than in the next sentence.
• Tanya Huff could be wikilinked.

Lead

• "Strickson was cast in the role at the request of his agent, with Strickson turning down a potential role in the series Angels to appear in Doctor Who." the article has "Strickson was contacted later that day with confirmation that he had been cast, though Nathan-Turner continued to host auditions for Turlough for the next two weeks, with the other actors who auditioned being cast in other roles in Doctor Who" but Nathan Turner's book says that "Mark was the last but one actor I saw for the part and by far the most splendid." I'd that in this case Nathan-Turner's account is probably more reliable (as he would have had more visibility of the process than Strickson did) and it might be worth adding something about how Nathan-turner favoured Strickson, and amending the lead too. ("cast in the role at the request of his agent" doesn't reflect that Nathan-Turner was impressed.)
• "Other critics have been more mixed in terms of the character's execution in the series." doesn't add a lot - as there aren't many different critical views in the article, maybe include a summary of one or two othere here?

Nice to see this at GA so soon after the AfD discussion! Feel free to challenge or ask about any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I believe I've made all of the necessary edits. Bit uncertain on the lead due to how the Reception is; let me know if I should make any adjustments. Thank you for the source alterations btw, you caught a few things I hadn't noticed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999 thanks. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA standards, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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.