Talk:Enlightenment (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEnlightenment (Doctor Who) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2013Good article nomineeListed

both written and directed by women[edit]

Is it worth noting on the page that this is the *only* Doctor Who story ever to have been both written and directed by women? Angmering 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unwanted } }[edit]

There is a }} at the top of the page. I cannot remove it without removing the infobox. Can someone help out and do so please? Thanks. Tom walker 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That came from someone's attempt to include a couple more fields in the infobox — it should be gone now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Ignore me... AlanD 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeral[edit]

you should mention in the continuity section that this is the first time humans were called ephemerals, they would also be called that in the Sarah Jane Adeventures story- "What Happened Ever To Sarah Jane?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.77.122 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Edition[edit]

There needs to be more detail on the 75-minute Special Edition and its differences from the original serial.Lee M (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Enlightenment (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this is looking good. I'm placing on hold for the moment, but my main concerns are over the length of the plot section, and one or two sourcing issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for reviewing (after all this time lol). I'm a bit busy with work at the moment but will look at the issues raised over the course of this week and should have it finished by next Sunday. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues addressed I believe. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Turlough, whom the Black Guardian (Valentine Dyall) had ordered to kill the Doctor, struggles with this assignment": What assignment? The race? His mission to kill the Doctor?
  • "In addition to Dyall, Englightenment also guest stars Keith Barron and Lynda Baron." Sounds clumsy. Do we need these guest stars in the lead? If so, I would rephrase as simply "Keith Barron and Lynda Baron also appeared in the serial." (or "also appear" if that is the convention on television articles)
    • I would remove the mention of both "guest" and "star". The biilings in the Radio Times (which are easily checked, since PDF scans of these are included on Disc One of BBCDVD 2596C) show "starring Peter Davison"; everybody else (Mark Strickson, Janet Fielding, Cyril Luckham, Valentine Dyall, etc.) are simply listed among the ordinary cast. The programme's on-screen credits do not use "starring" at all (not even for Peter Davison), let alone "guest". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production of Enlightenment was beset by problems": Redundancy?
  • "The serial was eventually finished": Maybe better as "It was…" to avoid repetition.
  • "meaning that several characters had to be recast at short notice when the original actors were unavailable for new filming dates": A little clumsy. Maybe (new sentence) "The unavailability of several actors for new filming dates forced the production team to recast their parts at short notice."
  • "was watched by an average of 6.8 million viewers": Not clear in this context how you can have an average number of viewers. I assume this is an average across the four episodes, but modern readers may assume it is the average number across the timeslot.
  • "received generally positive reviews from critics. Critics have noted": Try to avoid "critics. Critics…"
  • "and was subsequently released": I don't think we need "subsequently" here.

Plot:

  • I think this section is far, far too long. It is 1,341 words. The whole article is only 4,397 words, which makes the plot section (not including continuity) around 30% of the total article. This seems very unbalanced, and I don't think I can pass it like this. I would recommend cutting this section by at least a half. I have had similar issues over TV shows, where the plot section is too long. A quick look at some TV FAs may help to get the balance right.
  • I don't quite understand the need for a "continuity" section. I've reviewed a few Dr Who GAs before, and they have not included this. My understanding is that it is not a project requirement. Other TV shows do not have this, and it seems rather too specialised for a general encyclopaedia. My preference would be to cut it completely, although I am prepared to discuss that. The first paragraph could be used as a background section to the plot or moved to "conception and writing". The rest of it looks like it belongs in an article on the eternals, not on this story.
    • I would drop this. It's little more than a magnet for WP:FANCRUFT. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That section made me uneasy when I started re-editing this article but a continuity section is cited in the Doctor Who MOS and seems to be included in most classic serial articles.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My reading of that particular MOS is that a continuity is optional, should be handled with care, and if possible the information should be included in other sections. And I've certainly read GA Dr Who articles which lack a continuity section. And I question the value of this one. My preference remains to remove it, but if we are to keep it I think it should be cut right back. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree about cutting it back - it looks like some stuff has been added to this since I nominated. I'll rework it once I get that far. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've pared it right back to just deal with the in series continuity and removed all the stuff about books and audio plays.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is still a little long for my liking, but not enough of an obstacle to prevent promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

  • "her submission involved ships racing through space and eventually evolved into the story as screened": This submission sounds exactly like the broadcast story, so perhaps briefly highlight the fundamental differences.
  • "with the first episode being delivered in October and the three following episodes arriving in January 1982": Maybe "…and Clegg delivered the first episodes in October. The remaining three arrived in January 1982."
  • "Director Fiona Cumming came up with": We've already said who she is, so perhaps just begin "Cumming came up with…"
  • "could provide 'detached' performances": I don't think we need the quotes, and if we do, they should be double.
  • "when production was delayed he was forced to drop out due to other commitments": Make it more explicit that he was unavailable for the new filming dates, as it says in the lead. Maybe even state that it was (if I remember correctly) to film Last of the Summer Wine, as that is was he was primarily known for.
  • Do we need to know of Baron's future appearances in the series as part of this article?
  • Was this not Leee John's first acting role? Maybe worth saying so.
  • "This story marked Dyall's final appearance in the TV series, but he did return to the world of Doctor Who playing the character Slarn in the BBC Radio 4 serial Slipback, shortly before his death in 1985": This seems irrelevant to this article.
  • Any more on costume? It played a huge part in this story.
    • Found a mention of Wrack's ball gown - not much else available in the works I have. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one recording block left for the part completed Enlightenment": Should it be "part-completed"?
  • "Having been partly completed": Repetition of "part completed".
  • "The delays meant that the serial only finished filming around a month before its transmission date, meaning that composer Malcolm Clarke ": Meant…meaning.

Themes:

  • "treating other family members almost as 'lesser beings'.": If this is a quote, it requires double quotation marks.

Broadcast:

  • Minor point, and feel free to ignore this one, but why are the same two references used for each of the four episodes? Why not just the two references used once for the whole table?
    • Most articles on DW stories of the 1963-89 period use {{Doctor Who episode head}} wrapped around several instances of {{Doctor Who episode body}}, see for example the preceding story, Terminus or the following story, The King's Demons, where all the refs are shown as a footer row. I don't really know why this was changed to a bespoke table. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates used in those articles are pointless - templates should perform a function (parse text, perform layout, transclude information etc) and shouldn't be used when a standard wikitable will serve the purpose. The table used also provides for extra fields and sorting which can't be achieved with a template. In terms of the refs - I always reference every table line by habit - plenty of editors get hung up on referencing every minutiae of prose but are happy to wrap a 250 line table in a single ref. I don't think they do any harm and indicate that each row has been properly sourced. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The "Fact of fiction"a article is used quite a lot, but the reference covers eight pages. It would be better to use a single page for each reference in this article, rather than lump the whole eight pages onto every reference.

Spot-checks: The main source is the "Fact of Fiction" article. A few issues from spot-checks of this source, which may simply be mixing up sources. Worth a quick check, and another reason why it may be better to give individual page numbers for this source.

  • "The newspaper found by the Doctor in Part One was a reprint of The Times from September 1901": The source does not specify a reprint.
  • "and asked producer John Nathan-Turner if he could replace it but was told there was no money available.": The source does not say that no money was available.
    • As above.
  • One piece of close paraphrasing. No others that I could find from quite a lot of sampling.
    • Article: "not wetsuits at all, but heavy duty overalls spray painted black"
    • Source: "not wetsuits at all, but heavy-duty overalls spray-painted black"

Other:

  • Images are FU, and appropriately licensed, captioned, etc.
  • DABlinks and external links fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enlightenment (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enlightenment_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1207118900"