# Talk:The Robot Revolution

@TheDoctorWho and any other editors who may have worked on this article, I'll be happy to engage in discussion about what I did. Frankly, not that much ... the article was very well written—just as I remember your "Deer Lady" article was—so what I did was mainly to tighten up the article a little further for clarity and flow.  
Noticing that "The Robot Revolution" was reviewed for GA before the review I just completed, I was a little surprised that it would need yet another review. Can't hurt, of course, and I did make a few helpful "catches," but I wouldn't have expected the extra review request. Augnablik (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Thank you for the copyedit! A lot of times GA's help patch up unclear statements or some grammatical issues, but oftentimes don't include a full copyedit. I figured a pass over from an experienced copyeditor wouldn't hurt. I think my only major concern is the bulleted list in the critical reception section. The standard format is typically presented in a prose format, and seems... less jarring in a way, I guess? TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, @TheDoctorWho, I suppose "jarring," like beauty, is in the beholder. 🙂To me, the bullets really help differentiate the individuality of all those in the earlier long paragraph, so they don't run together. There is a lead-in sentence for each paragraph I bulletized so it would still have the look and feel of an article rather than a business memo.
Grammatical, as well as spelling and punctuation, fixes should be part and parcel of all copy editing. At least, good copy editing. Mine also involves focus on clarity and flow, however, which theoretically is more what's thought of as outright editing work, but to me just sort of goes along with the territory.
Augnablik (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about the bulletizing, you can of course put it back into paragraph format. Before you make a decision one way or the other, though, why not show both versions of the article to some others—especially different kinds of readers, like younger and older people, plus those who are Doctor Who fans (the program and not the author, that is!) and those who aren't. Augnablik (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho, I completed copy editing of "The Well" and your colleague Pokelego999 is actively engaged in discussion with me there. I didn't realize that you weren't the author of that article as you are of this one.
I gather that there are specific formats those of you who edit articles about TV shows, or perhaps just TV series, follow — like allowing a maximum number of words per article or ways that various sections of articles should appear, such as no bulletizing in the Reception section. Could I get a link to, or a copy of, that guidance so I can keep it in mind on any future copy editing I might do on similar articles? Augnablik (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho, I just noticed something very different in the format on the titles of "The Robot Revolution" and "The Well": right after the title of "The Well," (Doctor Who) appears, but not after the title of "The Robot Revolution."
Please decide which is the correct way. This decision should then also be applied to all previous articles in this series. (Fun!) Augnablik (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
That's normal, The Well is a disambiguation page so the (Doctor Who) is needed for that. Indagate (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
This decision should then also be applied to all previous articles in this series. It should definitely not. This is standard disambiguation. There is no other article titled The Robot Revolution, thus the article remains there. There are articles titled under The Well, so we disambiguate with the series name to The Well (Doctor Who) per WP:NCTV. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see ... I thought (Doctor Who) was part of the title, indicating the series to which the program belonged, and hadn't thought of disambiguation as a possible reason for its inclusion. Until copy editing this article and one more in the same TV series, I hadn't been aware that Wikipedia had special formats in this case. I will get ahold of it to study.  Augnablik (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)