# Talk:Nightmare in Silver

Eve (who played Angie in The Bells of St John, but we can't say for sure the same character will return) was named as the owner of the mislaid script back in November. Is that not enough to say she is part of the cast of this episode? U-Mos (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

hi, its just my opinion but could someone please rewrite some of the continuity section as it isnt written well or 100% clear thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.10.98 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 

I added that the episode received mixed reception it was reverted repetedaly. What kind of reception did the episode recive and how to list it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as I've explained this, when we are generalizing/summarizing critical reception, we cite sources that summarize/explain the reception, in this case a source stating that the episode has received mixed reviews. So we don't cherry-pick reviews and make our own assumptions/interpretations/synthesis. We let sources speak for themselves. (As an additional reminder: please make sure that your writing is free of spelling & grammatical errors and that you are not re-adding an already existing source before contributing to the articles.) ภץאคгöร 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nyxaros: It has now been brougt up in the GA that the line should be added back. What do you say to this? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I've responded, though nobody has stated that specific line should be added back. ภץאคгöร 19:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nightmare in Silver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this on soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written.
2. No OR, all of the info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.


### Lead
-I'd choose a different word than "charges" since that may be confusing for some readers  Done
-I'd add an overall view of what reviewers thought, then follow with Gaiman's statement, since it's a bit blunt right now.

 Comment: There's no "overall view" yet if you are referring to "positive/mixed/negative reviews", as there's no source backing up what this view may be. See WP:SYNTH, such situations need to be considered when reviewing the good article nominees. ภץאคгöร 19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nyxaros I definitely agree that the article's Reception doesn't seem to have an easy "positive, mixed, negative" in this case. Admittedly, I wrote this before looking at the Reception, and forgot to remove this comment. In any case, I will state that I don't think this is an issue in most cases so long as the information is easily verifiable in the article. It's less easy here, so I concur that it's probably something that should be excluded in the case of Nightmare in Silver.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


### Plot
-Does super-consciousness hyperlink? Might be worthwhile to do so. 

It does but to a different thing, the more appropriate term  would be hive-mind.
-Hyperlink split personality.  Done


### Production
-Looks good


### Broadcast and reception
-I'd fuse the second, third, and fourth paragraphs together.  Done
-"IGN's Mark Snow gave a positive review, though he felt that the episode was somewhat underwhelming but still worked as the return of the Cybermen" I'd make the "positive review" part the first sentence, and then reword the rest into a second sentence.  Done
-I'd fuse five and six together.  Done


### Overall
-Article looks mostly good. Just clear up the above and it should be good to go. Ping me if you have questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I have addressed most of the concerns with the exception of critical reception line in the lead. It was previously there but I removed it following another editor claming that it shouldnt be there.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I concur with that other editor on the matter. One last thing, if it's not too much, but would you be willing to further reword the IGN sentence? The split I feel is fine but it reads rather clunkily. I'd reword the second sentence to something like "Despite feeling that the episode was underwhelming, Snow felt the episode worked well as a return for the Cybermen."  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant apologies, forgot to ping you. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Hows that? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant I'd at change "of the" to "for the" but that should be all.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Should be good to go Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)