Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly delayed by real life, but should be done by the weekend I hope. —Kusma (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and general comments

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

A very nice article. I don't know much about Hartnell-era Doctor Who (I have seen the first three serials and The Tenth Planet, but nothing else) so I may ask some naive questions.

• Bibliography: Doctor Who: The Complete History is missing at least publishing date (2016?) and ISSN.

Images:

• non-free File:Chase (Doctor Who).jpg has missing bits in the "Summary" section
• caption of File:Doctor Who Experience (5879255282).jpg could mention that this is a Dalek for the uninitiated instead of talking about the serial
• I fixed the ugly red related to GFDL licensing issues on one of the Commons description pages.

Impressive overall. Will put on hold while you address my comments below, but I don't expect this to be for long. —Kusma (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content review

Lead section:

• Looks OK, although you could consider whether some more from the lengthy Production section could be added

Infobox:

• What is Production code "R" and is there a source for it?
• Is there a source for the cast list?

Plot:

• They stop atop the Empire State Building in New York City in 1966, and the Doctor and companions are mistaken for stowaways on the Mary Celeste until the Daleks arrive and the frightened boat crew abandon the ship. Are the Daleks in NYC and the Doctor on the Mary Celeste separate events in separate times or is the Mary Celeste in New York in 1966?
• Venturing into a metal city above the jungle, Mechonoids imprison the Doctor The Doctor is in the metal city, and the mechonoids venture there and capture him?
• time machine ... more reliable than the TARDIS I didn't realise the "TARDIS is unreliable" gag was that old :)

Conception and writing:

• (more expensive than typical production of the serial, or buying the script?
• Nation's scripts required little editing from Spooner, and he was too busy to undertake rewrites. Did anyone want them to be edited or rewritten? Otherwise, it kind of doesn't matter whether Nation was buys or not?
• the device was previously known as a Time Curve Visi-Scope and was invented by the Doctor in a previous serial, or in a previous iteration of the script?
• An early intention was for the first episode to feature the Beatles, dressed as old men that's cool, might be something for DYK after this passes. So the episode does feature the Beatles, just not as old men, but as their ordinary 1964 Beatlemania selves?

Directing and music

• Richard Martin was chosen to direct the serial; he was reluctant to agree, but had become known as the "Dalek director", having directed both The Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth—Lambert told him, "You owe it to me". and then he agreed because of being guilt tripped? I'm not a fan of the dash here. Also, who chose Martin? Do we know why he was reluctant? I don't quite see the contrast between "reluctant" and "Dalek director" expressed by the "but".
• unhappy about the existence of Frankenstein in the story, concerned that it did not present the concept in a realistic way Is this now Frankenstein or Frankenstein's monster? The word "realistic" seems a bit out of place when talking about time traveling aliens meeting fictional characters.

Sets and design:

• Cusick and John Wood worked together the next sentence makes it sound more like they divided the work between them?

Casting and characters:

• The sentence about Hartnell not being pleased with the script seems a bit out of place here.
• Due to the complexity of some shots, Warwick ... in some shots repetitive
• Martin cast several actors he had previously worked with in theatre do we know who they were? If they are the ones that follow, maybe connect with a colon?
• their somewhat piscine nature led to ballet-type movement, but Martin felt that they could have taken it further. I don't quite understand this. piscine -> ballet? Would making it more ballet-like have been better?
• The characters of Frankenstein's monster and Dracula were ... might be better to place this sentence earlier and combine with the Karloff mention so you don't say twice that the Frankenstein film was a big influence.

Filming:

• the 90-second action sequence not having seen the episode, I have no idea what you are talking about.
• The fight scene similar.
• How important is it how much production overran?

Broadcast and ratings:

• and made its way into the top 20; the fourth and sixth episodes entered the top 10 top 20 of what?
• The Appreciation Index was also successful I think you want to say the show was successful when measured by the Appreciation Index, or something like that?
• Tape erasure / telerecordings discovered: does this belong in this section?
• Were any international broadcasts made and were they successful?

A long and very detailed article, most of it already very well written. Perhaps slightly too detailed for my taste, but then I have weird taste. —Kusma (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Thanks for the review! I've gone through and addressed your concerns. Just to respond to a few comments:

• Like most films and television shows, the source for the cast list is the show itself, with specific references for uncredited performers.
• Some of the information you seek expansion upon—why Martin was reluctant, which performers he had previously worked with in theatre, international broadcasts—is unfortunately not mentioned in my sources.
• The information about the production overrunning isn't crucial, but I personally find it interesting and relevant.
• I find that the tape wiping (and recovery) information fits best within "Broadcast", since there's a direct correlation between the original broadcast and the erasure; this is the standard for all previous serials.

Let me know if you have any other concerns or comments. – Rhain ☔ 00:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits, I think we have reached GA quality. Looking forward to reading more excellent work on early Who! —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]