# Talk:Destination: Skaro

This review is transcluded from Talk:Destination: Skaro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this one. I need more points for the wikicup and also it would benefit my WikiProject and a frequent collaborator. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### General
Earwig spots nothing suspicious
Images need alt text.  Done


### Lead
You should try to avoid citations in the lead, however in this case its alright given the context of is use.
It doenst seem like Destination Skaro was met with mixed reception just the change to Davros.  Done


### Plot
looks good


### Production
The source claims that the minisode takes place prior to Genisis of the Daleks. Not simultaneously  Done
Link the lines about Davies being executive producer and Vicky Delow and Scott Handcock regular producers.  Done
This one is up to you but the plunger bit received a little bit of coverage, see here [1][2][3]  Done
It states that Julian Bleach reprised his role as Davros, but given that there have been multiple davros actors, it may be worth listing which episodes he previously appeared in.  Done-ish, I mentioned the year rather this list all of the episode
It might be worth noting chronology in relation to Power of the Doctor as that was the most recent TV episode of at the time. It is noted in the plot summary but not by name so  Done


### Broadcast and reception
Break up the sections about release and reception into two separate paragraphs.  Done
Tell me about the reliabilty of nerdgazam.  Done
Doctor Who TV.uk isn't really the best fan site.  Done (replaced)
It doenst seem like Destination Skaro was met with mixed reception just the change to Davros. I would suggest slightly tweaking the wording.  Done


### Response
@OlifanofmrTennant: I know you're still working through it, but I fixed the first two issues. As for Nerdgazm, we have transparency in authorship and a clear editorial policy that explains its content policy which falls in line with WP:INDEPENDENT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Hey there, it's been nearly two weeks. Just checking to see if this is something you're still working on?  TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
oh yeah sorry, I was drafting up some notes before I lost access to my primary computer for a weekish because some incompetent fool spilled water over it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No worries, there's no rush. Just wanted to double check. Rumor has it that computers also need hydration sometimes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: I believe I've addressed everything! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A statement appears in this article, in the Production section: "The episode also canonically explains how the Daleks came to have plunger-like devices in their design." I added the word "arguably" to this quote, between "also" and "canonically", for the idea of canonicity in Doctor Who is arguable generally. Additionally, one of the cited sources declares "Of course, a throwaway line of dialogue allows viewers some leeway over whether to consider this scene part of Doctor Who's canon or not - the Doctor makes a comment about the timelines being in chaos." Hence, it is arguable. Nevertheless, the title of this source and the heavy implication from the other source's title suggest that this is canonical, as intended, irrelevant of what any viewer may infer. Thus, my edit was reverted.
Based on the definition of "canon" in terms of Doctor Who, and the wording of the quote above, and the fact that this line, appearing in the episode, is deliberately placed to suggest the moment is not necessarily the absolute canonicity of events (which was the intended idea by the production, fitting the section), I still somewhat think the adverb "arguably" has some merit. However, perhaps this logic would lead to all references of canonicity being affected as "arguable", even if there is not a source declaring it so, which may be rather cumbersome to edit subsequently across all Doctor Who-related pages.
In conclusion, I do not really mind strongly whether "arguably" appears or not, though I am a little in favour of it being there, and wanted to make this note considering the idea here, as suggested by the user who reverted the edit. ButterCashier (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't solely base my revert off of their title. I also re-read the content of both sources. The ScreenRant source states "After 60 years, Doctor Who's Children In Need 2023 special has finally revealed why Daleks have plungers." Meanwhile, the Collider source says "Whilst the Fourteenth Doctor unwittingly named his future enemy, he is also now canonically responsible for the plunger appendage given to Daleks." Neither of these statements, to me anyways, leaves this up for debate.
The quote in question you're referring to, is halfway down the ScreenRant source. In full context, it reads "Not only does the Doctor inspire the manipulator arm, he also accidentally gives the Daleks their name and catchphrase. Of course, a throwaway line of dialogue allows viewers some leeway over whether to consider this scene part of Doctor Who's canon or not - the Doctor makes a comment about the timelines being in chaos." What "viewers" interpret a story as being, has never and will never belong in the production section of an article as viewers weren't involved in the production of the episode. That's why I said that if you felt it was necessary, it belongs in the reception section, not production. Additionally, the action of giving the plunger arm cannot be interpreted as a "throwaway line of dialogue" as it was an action and not spoken. That was probably more in reference to the naming of the Daleks and their catchphrase. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)