Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [1].

The Trial of a Time Lord edit

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)

This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The previous nomination failed only for lack of activity; no supports, no opposes, but comments in the FAC suggest it is of a decent enough quality to merit the FA status. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I will preface my comments by saying, for what it's worth, I know nothing about Dr. Who

Bellhalla (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (resolved comments so far)[reply]

- In the lead section:
  - ~~The show was weekly but there were "four distinct sections"? Some explanation is needed about what the comprised the four sections (I see them listed below, but it needs clarification in the lead.)~~
  - ~~Is the information about Melanie Bush and the next season relevant, especially in the lead?~~
  - ~~What does "who withdrew his completion of the Holmes' final serial" mean? Who is (or are) Holmes? (I know from reading on, but the lead should summarize, not mystify.)~~
  - ~~I think the lead would benefit from a broad plot synopsis of the entire serial. Something along the lines of "Dr. Who is accused of … and is tried by … for …"~~
    - Done. When the word "segment" is used, it should mean "block of four/two episodes" - tell me if there are any slipups. The rest are done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That all looks good. The plot synopsis in the lead is great. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "Production" section:
  - (~~1st para.) Why is trial in quotes?~~
  - (2nd para.) In the first sentence of the lead segment referred to what aired weekly, right? Here, it's used to refer to the "distinct sections", right? Being from the US (with differing television unit naming), I don't know what word to suggest, but consistency of usage, at least within this article, is necessary.
  - (same) "fourteenth and last episode" Is this just one episode? It sounds like two to me.
  - ~~(3rd para.) Pip and Jane Baker linked twice in this segment.~~
  - ~~(4th para.) there are extra spaces around the em dash in one of the date ranges in the final sentence.~~
    - Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the "Reception" section:
  - ~~("Ratings and figures") The Audience Appreciation was higher, yet lower than previous seasons(?) I'm confused.~~ I see now. It was two metrics being discussed.
    - I think the wording was already fine: the approval rating was higher than season 22, but the viewer share was lower. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~("Doctor Who: The Television Companion", 2nd para) Perhaps a link to The Caves of Androzani would be appropriate?~~
    - Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the serial win any awards?
  - - I don't think so. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Serials" section:

The alternate titles for Nos. 146 and 147 should be explained, perhaps in the "Production" section. It's especially confusing since the alternate for 146 and the main for 147 are the same.
It looks like from The Ultimate Foe that either Time Inc. or Time Incorporated is acceptable, but I think it would be better for consistency to use one or the other (rather than both) in this article
What is the source of the information about the four segments/sections described? They are completely un-cited.
- The issue of whether plot summaries must be cited or not, and how is a difficult one; some people don't cite them as the episode serves as a reference, some people use {{cite episode}}, and some people use external summaries. I'll see if I can do both of the latter options.

Are there no relevant images at all for the article? A DVD box cover? Any of the writers or actors?

- Free images exist for Baker and Langford. The DVD, on the other hand, isn't released until this Autumn. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Bellhalla (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the bold or the link from the text "Doctor Who" in the lead per WP:LEAD.
Format the dates in the references, like "2008-04-03" to "2008-04-03" per WP:CITE/ES.

Gary King (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of problems with the article that I'd like to share:

1) While the historical notes in the lead are interesting, they seem secondary. This is an article about the episodes themselves, and I think it should concentrate on that. I believe this would be improved by moving the 4th para up to the 2nd.

2) Really bad prose:

"Throughout the trial, the Doctor becomes suspicious about evidence being censored and his TARDIS being bugged. The evidence shows the Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot: the former because the robot's power supply is unstable; the latter to gain access to the secrets. The secrets are destroyed, and all parties are able to leave Ravalox positively, with the exception of the Doctor; he is still inquisitive on why Earth was moved several million light years. "

I really don't know what this is trying to say. I simply can't see the connection between the first and second sentences, although there seems to be one implied.

Are there two pieces of evidence being presented, one showing the Doctor deactivating the robot and another showing Glitz doing it? Or is this trying to say that the Doctor and Glitz worked together, for different reasons?

And what does "able to leave Ravalox positively" mean? How does one "leave positively"? Do you mean "in good spirits" or something similar. And as it is worded now, it seems to be suggesting that the Doctor did not leave the planet.

3) Unclear statement:

"The Doctor arrives while a scientist, Crozier is experimenting brain surgery before performing on Kiv"

What does "is experimenting brain surgery" mean? And who is he experimenting on? And why should we care? Is this an important plot point?

4) Unfinished statement:

"The Doctor, Mel, and Lasky succeed in preventing the Vervoids."

preventing the Vervoids from WHAT? Do you mean "frustrating the Vervoids plans"?

5) More odd prose:

"The Doctor's suspicions are furthered by the evidence shown being different from that he reviewed."

Reading this sentence makes my brain hurt. Please reword.

6) What?

"In response to the Doctor's allegations the Matrix has been altered, the Keeper (James Bree) is called, seconds before the Master (Anthony Ainley) appears to prove the Doctor's point. "

Do you mean "appears" as in "appears to do a good job", or "appears" as in "appears in a flash of light"? Why did the Master appear in either case? Who is the Keeper and why was he called? And there's a missing "that"; allegations that the Matrix...

7) More...

"The Doctor's attempts to prevent the Valeyard from killing the High Council are marred by the Master's machinations"

So does this mean the High Council are all killed? Are some of them killed? None? If it's none, what exactly was marred?

8) More...

"The Doctor prevents the Valeyard by causing the destruction of the Matrix archive."

The Doctor prevents the Valeyard from doing what? Do you mean "thwarts" instead of "prevents"? And how does destroying the Matrix prevent the Valeyard from doing whatever it is he was doing?

And I'm still utterly baffled by the Master's role. Did he come into the episodes offering to help the Doctor? Is the Valeyard his puppet, as the text implies? If so, why did the Master "appear" at all? Logic would dictate that he simply wait to see the verdict, and then act if need be.

I'm sorry, but this article really needs work IMHO.

Maury (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Master doesn't help the Doctor per se, he just doesn't want a rival in the Valeyard. Most of the rest, I've tried to make it clear. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some improvement, but I'd like to see a few more changes. Some of these I could implement myself, but it has been a very long time since I last saw these episodes and I want to be sure I'm interpreting it all correctly.

Move "Throughout the trial..." to become the last sentence of the first paragraph. Since it covers the entire story arc it seems to be well-placed up front.

"The Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot...", do you mean "deactivate"? If so, perhaps "The Doctor and Glitz work together to deactivate the robot;"

"leave Ravalox with a positive attitude", this just doesn't work for me, there must be a better way to express this. I also find it difficult to believe that Glitz was happy when he lost all of the technology he was hunting. Consider re-writing this paragraph.

"the Doctor and Peri's activities immediately before the trial on Thoros Beta", it seems this would be more clear if it said "the Doctor and Peri's activities on Thoros Beta immediately before the trial", assuming that's correct.

"is experimenting brain surgery", remains broken. I'm just guessing, but I think you mean to say that Crozier is experimenting with brain surgery on someone else before attempting... And am I correct in thinking that the brain surgery is actually a brain transplant?

The next statement seems self-contradictory, it starts with "Crozier and betraying Peri and a local king" and then immediately says "he allies with Yrcanos to kill the Mentors". Was there some sort of change of heart here? And how does the Doctor betray Peri and Yrcanos? (I think I may have missed this episode).

Maury (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Valeyard's tampering that made the Doctor appear malevolent, to the point of betrayal. As for brain surgery, I think (it's a while since I saw ep. 5) that he's experimenting different ways to perfect the procedure. Though if it helps, he does work on Yrcanos. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The change of heart is actually specified: it's the fact Crozier chooses Kiv. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least for now. I think this is overall a good work, but could definately use some polishing before it's ready to pass as a FA. I would highly recommend a good peer review and passing it through GA before resubmitting it to this process.

1a: The lead is somewhat difficult to follow. In the second paragraph, you appear to be summarizing individual sub-serials, but that's not clear from the text. The lead is supposed to be a summary, but it's bewildering as it's written. It makes sense when you know what the "Valeyard" is and what those titles are, but it's a bit much for a new reader. Here's my take on an alternate version, just to give you an idea what I mean:

In the serial, the Doctor is put on trial by the High Council of the Time Lords for allegedly interfering with outside worlds. In the first two segments, titled The Mysterious Planet and Mindwarp, the prosecutor (a mysterious figure known only as the Valeyard) uses events from the Doctor's past to prove his guilt. In the third segment, the Terror of the Vervoids, the Doctor defends himself by showing future events. In the final segment, The Ultimate Foe, the Doctor's trial is abruptly stopped by accusations of subterfuge; the Doctor faces off with the Valeyard and his long-time rival, the Master, to clear his name and to save the High Council.

"In the serial," ; "The serial," ; "The serial," Try to vary your word choice some more.
"which prompted a more creative format." - What does that mean?
"but was appreciated more by the audience" - By what measure? Citation please!
If production on Doctor Who was suspended, why was the series proposed? There looks to be a false cause-and-effect here.
The second paragraph in the "Production" section needs work. It's a little twisted and hard to follow. (Too many semicolons?)
I can't figure out what happens in the third paragraph. Obviously with the death and the many writers all working in parallel, this was a complex process, but the writing should do a little more to make it clear.
"Production block 7C"... this is the first time you mention production blocks. I don't know what a "production block 7c" means... was it the third plot arc in the seventh season? No. So, I really don't know what it is. :)
"all parties are able to leave with a positive attitude" - what does this mean?
Earth was moved several million light years? Maybe you should explain more in the description of this serial.
Speaking of which, you use "serial" to mean both the whole series as well as the individual arcs. I believe this is because the BBC itself uses the term for both, but it's confusing. I think in the cases above, you always used a different term.
"but the ship is being sabotaged while people begin to perish" - reword?
I've now noticed that you aren't consistent even within the article with the title of the fourth serial. Sometimes it;s the Ultimate Foe, sometimes Time Inc. You list both titles, but don't explain why it has two (that I saw) and you should stick with one to reduce confusion.
"He is offered the Time Lord Presidency". Who? The Doctor? The Inquisitor?
Consider merging the short paragraphs in the Reception section?
I notice that you have a Doctor Who season infobox. If you are classifying this as a serial, it may be better to have the serial one? (And note that the bottom infobox also uses "serial" in the other sense.)
1b: You discuss the production and the reception with a little bit of plot outline, but for completeness you might want to pass on (at least briefly) some of the in-universe trivia. The appearance of Mel as the companion here is commonly remarked on by Doctor Who resources (which I admit, are not necessarily reliable) because it means that she effectively never meets the doctor for the first time.
Any idea why Peri was fired from the series?
Any fallout between seasons that should be remarked on? Obviously, there's a new doctor in Season 24 and if that came as a direct result of this series, devoting more time to it might help.
1cde: seems factually accurate, neutral, and stable to me.
2c: You list a lot of items in your References section which never have corresponding footnotes, and you sometimes use the same source over and over again in any given paragraph. (In which case you may not need to cite it multiple times or you should make clearer that intervening sentences are separately cited.)
Of greater concern is that most of your footnotes are from exclusively web sources. I will give you that the BBC here is reputable, but fansites should be used sparingly. (Even if they are as excellent as these! It's just not a good habit when you can avoid it. You have a lot more written references and it would be nice if you could use those instead of the fansite.)
3: Absolutely no images. Are there any fair-use or free images which we could use here? None?

I don't mean to nitpick. I know you've worked very hard on this. But there is a good amount of work ahead to make it featured, but I think it will be worth it. This is a fascinating and very important moment in the history of Doctor Who. For all intents and purposes, Doctor Who was on trial. It's a good start. JRP (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Agree with JRP that it's a bit odd to have all those references listed but never used. Otherwise sourcs look good, and the links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are what the (inline) sources use. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, whenever possible, you should site them instead of the inline sources, especially the "Brief History of Time Travel" one. Also, if you yourself didn't use those sources (they were cited upstream), I'm not sure they should appear in this article's reference section. That implies that this article used them as sources, when instead your sources used them as sources. But, since they are right and proper wikipedia-able sources, if you have them, you can just cite them yourself in the article and problem solved. JRP (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph needs, somewhere, the word television. That's a bit... odd, considering that would be where the most basic and straightforward information should go. giggy _(:O) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.