# Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rose (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 

Sorry to but in, but what would be great would be if this could be reviewed by Saturday, the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who, or a few days before so that if it passes it can be nominated for DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather do a decent review than a hasty one. If speed is the priority here then I am not the best reviewer. I am quite happy to put this back in the pool and let someone else do it. Let me know in the 24 hours.  I am quite happy for people to leave comments on my talkpage, but as I do have this page watchlisted there's no need to leave a talkback template. I will pick up on comments left here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was just making a passing observation, and also agree with you that a quality not speed is needed. That said, I saw that you had been taking up lots of reviews, so was just making you aware of the fact that a DYK would be good. Thanks, Matty.007 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in there, it was just my opinion, Kelvin 101 nominated it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine - and I recognise what you are saying. I have put reviews back when people say they would prefer a quick one (and there are reviewers who can drill down and do a review quickly - indeed, I have also been known to do a review in less than 24 hours!). I will put this one top of the pile and see what happens. I remember the Saturday of the first Dr Who, even though I actually missed it. My mum told me about it when I got home, and she told me to be home early the next Saturday so as not to miss the second episode. So I was home early, and the BBC showed the first episode again because so many people had missed it because of Kennedy's assassination. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Matty.007 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


### Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments on GA criteria
Pass
Has a reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Images are OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Article is stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Article is neutral in tone and presentation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Focus. No section is too long or too detailed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering about some of the detail - such as the coat rack. Unless the mention of the coat rack is put into context, it appears to be rather trivial - something of interest to fans perhaps, but I'm not seeing the interest for a general encylopedia. Why does it matter that the coat rack is in the same style of the first series? Is there a reliable source which mentions this? At the moment the source is a BBC trivia page. It may be a fact - but is it an important and helpful fact? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed that bit, but I think that the rest of the 'Continuity' section is relevant. Thanks, Matty.007 18:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Query
Per WP:Layout, a GA criteria, please check the external links against WP:EL. There appear to be too many links for a GA level article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
*Caption on the Russell Davies image appears too long per WP:CAP, a GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Attempted fix on both. Matty.007 17:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
With the possible exception of a BBC link I can't open, which may be a streamed video of the episode, I am not seeing any of those external links as meeting WP:ELYES and doubtful if any meet WP:ELMAYBE. I would suggest that they are all removed, or a rationale given for each one that is proposed should stay. At GA level, an article would be deemed to contain the sort of general information that would be contained in sites such as IMDB or other user generated site such as tardis.wikia.com. The script or a licensed streaming of the episode would be good links. But general articles on alternative websites are not. Worth checking with WP:RSN to see if this is acceptable. It has a transcript of the episode. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Trimmed again. 1 isn't a RS, but contains info, 2 is official, 3 and 4 are internet TV/Doctor Who sites, and 5 is IMDB. Matty.007 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please either remove the links or explain exactly which EL criteria they meet in WP:EL. At GA level we should not be directing readers to alternative reader generated sites like IMDB and external wikis. If those sites have more information than Wikipedia than this article is by default failing to provide enough information. For an article on a TV episode links to the script or a licensed stream of the video would be acceptable, but not fan sites such as http://www.drwhoguide.com, which offer nothing that can't be put in this article with appropriate research and use of reliable sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Removed all but the official BBC link. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. Can you explain why the BBC link has been left in? I can understand a link to the BBC website for the article on Doctor Who, but I'm not seeing the reason for this article which is on one episode. The link goes to a page which tells us nothing we don't already know, and if you click on links on that page they take you away from the episode onto general info about Doctor Who or current events. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, it says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", which the link does not, however, it also says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", so I think that although the official page doesn't add any information, it says when it was on, and is the official page for that episode. Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 The reason I am still querying this is A) The subject of the article is an episode of Doctor Who, the link is to a site run by the BBC. The BBC own the episode, but are not in themselves the subject of the article. That in itself could be overlooked if the link was actually providing something of value to the reader. It is not. B) It offers nothing of value. It is a landing platform which then directs readers to other pages which promote other aspects of the Doctor Who franchise. Placing it on this article looks like a link for its own sake, rather than a link which is useful to the reader. Even if a link is "official", it is only used if it adds value - see WP:ELOFFICIAL. This article gets over 18,000 readers a month - we don't want to frustrate these readers by sending them to a website which offers them no value, but wastes their time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:Layout consider turning the Broadcast and reception into a single section. Essentially those sub-sections are paragraphs. Creating such short sub-sections inhibits flow and makes the article look cluttered and uninviting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Matty.007 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes the prose is not clear or helpful. This sentence "Clive's "Who is Doctor Who?" fictional website actually exists and is maintained and updated by the BBC as if the events of the series were real." only makes sense if you already know what it's about. The website is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Other poor quality sentences are "Although this episode is set in London, Queens Arcade, where we see the Autons come to life, is actually in Cardiff"; "The Auton sequences were difficult to film because the costumes were uncomfortable for the actors and so many breaks had to be taken"; "For audience identification purposes, Davies wanted the alien menace to be recognisably human, and for Rose to believe for at least the first twenty minutes that it could be human. He felt that there was no need to create a new monster as the Autons met the criteria". These need more than copy-editing, they need rethinking as its not clear what is intended, or the information is being presented poorly. I suspect the Queens Arcade sentence is saying that the episode was filmed in Cardiff. I think the difficulty with the prose is close to this criteria being a fail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed, then undid my removal of that section. Do you think it is useful, or just trivia? Thanks, Matty.007 19:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's trivia. That the BBC uses non-branded products is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article on a Dr Who episode. Building an article is about researching the topic and selecting the appropriate material. It's not about putting in whatever information one comes across in a media release or fan site. There is a selection process involved, and that means rejecting inappropriate material that the general reader would not be interested in. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I was unsure. Removed. Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I fixed those sentences as well. Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Focus. No section other than the Plot is too long or too detailed. The Plot section, however, seems  more detailed than necessary - it's almost half of the article, and contains unnecessary or interpretative phrases such as "the last day of her ordinary life", "As she is making him a coffee", and "Unable to let the matter rest". Perhaps a bit of trimming? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary give some advice.  SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I cut a little, but I think that most of it is important for the article. Thanks, Matty.007 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is how you do it. Thanks! Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Coverage is improved. Possibly OK now - will consider again when doing final checks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's any Original Research, though I'd like the facts sourced to the blank BBC webpage to be appropriately verified before passing this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
The 1996 TV movie is mentioned in the lead, but not in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Fail
Coverage. Given that this was the first episode of the revived Dr Who, and as such a somewhat significant episode, then I suspect readers might want some of the background leading up to its creation. Difficult perhaps to judge just how much information should go into this article as compared to  the article on the entire series, but a little bit from this would be helpful. Also, some information on the cast would be helpful. We get a sentence in the lead that this is the debut of Christopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor, but that is not picked up on in the main body as it should be per WP:Lead - indeed, the first mention of Eccleston in the main body is that he is leaving the series. Piper only gets mentioned in the main body in the critical reception. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I made a small expansion, but the relevant info in the article you linked is about the series in general; I think linking to the page and the section now is sufficient. Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is definitely a lot of information about bringing the series back, and I would also propose a casting section similar to The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) as it is the first episode with the new cast. There is also information more specific to the episode's production that can be found; I have the DVD but have not gotten around to watch the commentary, though that would undoubtely be valuable. I do have notes on the accompanying Doctor Who Confidential episodes, which I'll make time to add if someone else doesn't get to it first (I'm not sure my notes are the most comprehensible to everyone). Overall this article is a bit premature in this section compared to other episode articles, especially as this is such an important episode. Glimmer721 talk 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Glimmer721: would you be able to add this before Saturday, preferably ASAP? Thanks, Matty.007 17:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have had a bit of an expansion, but there really isn't much out there. Thanks, Matty.007 20:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Though we don't get much about the development of the episode nor the recording, we do get a section called Fictional websites which contains some trivia. Is this really needed? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I initially removed it, then restored it. What do you think on the section? Matty.007 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's trivia. What the article needs is encyclopedic information. I do believe there are books on the series which might give more factual information that would be useful. The article needs to written for the general reader rather than the typical Dr Who fan. Be aware of the audience for the article. This is Wikipedia not a Dr Who fan site. Fans can write the article, but just be aware of the sort of things the general reader would be interested in rather than what Dr Who fans would be interested in.  SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, removed. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One of the external links - shannonsullivan.com - has good information on the production and filming, and shows the sources where the information came from. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Added. Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Several challengeable statements are unsourced. I've marked one paragraph. I also note that the article is mainly sourced to snips from the BBC rather than detailed books on the topic - and that's probably why it is so thin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think MarnetteD fixed this. Matty.007 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


### General comments
"The episode was written by show runner Russell T Davies". What is "show runner"? It's not mentioned again in the article. Is this the same as Showrunner? If that is what is meant, would executive producer be acceptable as an alternative and clearer usage? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that it is a UK TV show, that would probably be best. I'll have a look. Matty.007 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Matty.007 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
RTD was billed in the opening credits as follows: "Rose by Russell T Davies", and in the closing credits as follows: "Executive Producers Russell T Davies Julie Gardner Mal Young". So he was an Executive Producer but not the Executive Producer. These three shared the post until "The Parting of the Ways" twelve episodes later. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
A number of cites use this webpage as a source: [1], but I'm not getting anything from it other than: "Life in plastic, it's fantastic. When Rose Tyler meets a mysterious stranger called the Doctor, her life will never be the same again. Soon she realises that the whole of planet Earth is in danger." SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A number of cites in the article? If so, which ones? Thanks, Matty.007 19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Current Reference number 2. There are eight statements in the article which use that page as a source. I've looked at the Wayback Machine, but the page remains the same (for me at least): [2]. Can some other source be used to verify the same information? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll try and fix this this evening. Is that the only issue left? Thanks, Matty.007 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Will this BBC page do as an alternative? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 OK. Use one is a plot thing, so doesn't need a source. 2 is also a plot thing, and already sourced. In fact, it is only used to source plot, which doesn't need sourcing. Thanks, Matty.007 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have had a go at expanding the article, and addressing all the issues you raised, is this article now GA standard? Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


### On hold
Concerns are listed above. My feeling is that this article needs a fair amount of work to build it up to GA standard. It is rather flimsy at the moment with very little encyclopedic information. It is written with the tone and point of view of media press releases and fan gossip rather than informative and authoritative facts. If folks are prepared to put in the work to get this ready for Saturday, then I will support that and will keep this at the top of my watchlist. I am also happy to keep this GAN open for longer than the standard seven days if folks do want to take their time on building it. I am OK with keeping a GAN open for over a month as long as progress is being made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the amendments a bit later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What still needs attending to:
Sourcing. Eight statements are cited to a webpage which does not verify the information.
Coverage. This article contains less information about production and development of the episode than this blog. Collinson, the producer, is not mentioned in the article. Interesting pieces of information such as  JK Rowling turning down the offer to write the script are not included. The article would benefit from a little time spent on being built up to a decent standard. I don't have time to work on it today or the weekend (I was going to do some work last night, but then our street had a power cut!), but should be able to do some work next week. Having it a GA standard article on Saturday is a nice aim, but given that the 50th anniversary is for a different episode, I don't think it matters that this one is still being worked on. At least it is being worked on!
The lead will need some work so that it meets WP:Lead.
A final scan for prose: I still come across unclear sentences - "Eccleston's clothing in the episode of a battered leather jacket was used in the pitch originally set out by Davies, and also went with Eccleston's desire not to have clothes dominating his time on the show."
If folks manage to get the above done today, I'll look again this evening and see if it can be listed. If not, then I have no problem with working on those things myself next week. With only a bit of work needed, I don't see the article as failing to be listed. The only question is when. And the target is not Saturday. The target is the GA criteria. Meet the criteria today and it will be listed for Saturday. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have added a little to the production part; but my feeling is that most of the stuff in that source should go in the article on series 1, not the first episode. Having had a look; there isn't much to-do when Ecclestone was announced as Doctor, in sharp contrast to Matt Smith; who was talked about everywhere for weeks. The sourcing was for plot, and I removed the case where it wasn't. That sentence is fixed, and I am working on the lead. Thanks, Matty.007 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've had a go at the lead. Is the article OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've had a go, but I'm not making good progress. I am noticing uncited challengeable statements (which I've tagged), and I'm doing quick research and finding information which is pertinent and useful to this article, but is not in here. It's a balance between comprehensive (FA criteria) and broad coverage (GA criteria), but it's causing me concern. I can sort this out, but I don't have time tonight as we're off to France first thing in the morning. I would have liked to have had this passed as GA for you by tomorrow, but I'm not quite comfortable with it as it is, and I'd rather be sure. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and fix these later today. Thanks, Matty.007 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've referenced those issues to the episode/series, per this essay (the only thing I could find which addressed such an issue). Is the article OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say the regeneration stuff is better in production/casting. If this hasn't been recorded, I'm planning on watching the DVD commentary Wednesday (the earliest I can get to it) and hopefully work on structure and adding a few more other sources. Glimmer721 talk 19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
OK; I realised that this couldn't appear in DYK anyway, having appeared in it in 2005; so there is no rush. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A few quick things that could be added with (relaible) sources and information found in other articles, just off the top of my head:

Casting of Eccleston and Piper, Coduri and Clarke, as well as functions of their character (not as in-depth as their respective articles, but more than what is here)
The original run of the series (1963-1989) and how when bringing it back, Davies changed some things (45-minute format, function of companion, etc - in relation to this episode at least)
Either more publicity or no more at this GA stage
Maybe more reception
I'll try to get these added and expanded over the next few days. Glimmer721 talk 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do this now; I have to watch Doctor Who... Matty.007 19:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah well I was too. I just made these quick notes before. I've made a few more edits but the major ones will have to wait until tomorrow. Glimmer721 talk 00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


### Update
I have added information from the DVD commentary as well as some more information from other sources, mostly from production. The article has been substantially improved by this and I believe it now requires another look at. Thanks for being patient! Glimmer721 talk 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


### Listed
Great work from everyone! The article has really improved. Listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review SilkTork; and especially for prioritising this. Thanks, Matty.007 17:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rose (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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=34982
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article is ambiguous despite having a parenthetical disambiguator, and one would think if anything the character would be the primary topic of "Rose (Doctor Who)", since she appeared in multiple episodes beyond this one, and this title would redirect there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

this is a fair point. I'm curious if we should make similar provisions for Timeless (Star Trek: Voyager) to Timeless (Star Trek: Voyager episode) to differentiate from Timeless (Doctor Who) which redirects to Timeless (Cole novel)?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 09:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Umm... no... that's a completely dissimilar problem, since Doctor Who is a separate franchise from Star Trek (let alone Voyager)... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Never mind then!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There are at least two different professional books which have been published, specifically examining both the 'behind the scenes' real world development of 'Rose' and the thematic elements which make it up. These are not versions of the story itself, but are (semi) academic studies of the episode as whole, written by people unconnected with the creation of the story on television, and are primarily made up of critical analysis.  I added this detail to the page but one editor keeps changing/undoing the section to headline it first 'Commercial releases' alongside dvds etc, and then 'Printed releases' alongside the novelisation.  
These are clearly not the same thing but the user in question is unwilling to engage in discussion (ignoring/deleting an attempt to open a dialogue on his talk page and adding no note to his reversions/changes).
Life is too short to keep coming back here (and on other Doctor Who pages) to revert his changes, but perhaps I'm missing something - sis the consensus that something like the Complete History or The Black Archive books on 'Rose' are in fact somehow versions of the story itself?  If that is the consensus, then fine, but it'd be interesting to know if I'm wasting my time... 
I've put the page back to what I think the more useful layout for now. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)