Talk:The Last Sontaran/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I'm weebiloobil. Soon, I will post a review of The Last Sontaran here, according to the gooad article criteria. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "the only survivor of the Tenth Sontaran Battle Fleet which was otherwise seen to be destroyed in Doctor Who episode "The Poison Sky" - the bit about Doctor who is unnecessary in the plot section, but would be good in Continuity.

   B. MoS compliance:

   "The Last Sontaran is the first story" - why story and not serial? For reference, this is wondered upon at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Sarah Jane Adventures... stories?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Why are both 1980 and 1997 used for when the Battle of Hoth was seen in Star Wars V?

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reference 3 is unnecessary; the episode has been broadcast, that can provide the soucre for director and writer. WP:LEAD says that citations are only needed in the lead for disbuted info, which the first line is not. The "is a sequel" comment is unsourced - the provided sources are only those of the episodes in question, and the links to the articles will do. This comment needs to be sourced, with this issue possibly being contested - what makes it a sequel? Reference 5 is not needed at the end of the lead.

   C. No original research:

   Once again, why is this a sequel? '"Journey's End" which precedes this story chronologically' - is this stated anywhere? The assumption appears to be made because Luke mentions Maria in 'Journey's End', but she could still be on holiday in Cornwall if she moved to America.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am placing this article on hold, until the little bits about story/serial and ORare resolved - weebiloobil (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a complete lack of notice of this report? Hmm, reading it over, it is a bit picky, but I have chosen comments for a reason... Perhaps a second opinion would be helpful - weebiloobil (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion comment - If you have checked the article over and seen that none of your concerns were corrected, and there were no rebuttals to your comments posted here on the review page (which there weren't, obviously), then you can go ahead and fail the article. Generally, an editor that has a problem with one or more of your comments will reply to you here on the review page, rather than completely ignoring you, which appears to be the case here. There are articles, on occasion, that have editors put them up for review and then never look at them again...which sucks for everyone involved. If the editor comes back at some point after you fail the article, they can always ask you any questions they may have on your talk page and then renominate the article at GAN. Hope this helps...drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left this here pvernight, and still nothing has been done. This article has failed its GA - weebiloobil (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)