The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The lead is more than 400 words long (about a sixth of the text of the article), and contains a lot of detailed information. Consider trimming off some of these details to shorten the lead overall, (e.g. although William Hartnell was still credited on-screen; in doing so, he realised that such a story would need a hero; Pre-filming took place at Ealing Studios in June 1965, while; with praise for the script and direction; released on 9 October 2019, 54 years after the original broadcast, the recreation received positive reviews for its faithfulness to the original material.
Duplicate links: Terry Nation; Derek Martinus (they should both be named by surname only after first being mentioned in the text).
Plot
UN – is presumably United Nations, I would consider either linking this, or not abbreviating it.
Link Dalek, as it’s the first time the word appears in the main text of the article.
Dalek Supreme – ‘the Dalek Supreme’?
The significance of the Varga plant thorn could be made clearer.
attempt – ‘are attempting’?
their crew member Jeff Garvey – ‘the third crew member, Jeff Garvey’ sounds better imo.
Garvey gradually mutates – why gradually, and is he not dead already? Consider amending to something like ‘Garvey’s dead body mutates’.
ducking behind some bushes – it sounds as if it is the Daleks being referred to here, but Daleks don’t duck.
he and Cory flee – I would move this to the start of the sentence, i.e., ‘Lowery and Cory flee as the Dalek platoon arrives’.
upon learning he became infected - ‘upon discovering he has become infected’ sounds better imo.
before he could launch the beacon – imo the sentence sounds better without this bit included.
The last sentence of the section needs copy editing.
Conception and writing
eventually commissioned – why eventually?
The information about the episode's production code seems too detailed to include here.
The image is imo “primarily decorative” (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE), and I wouldn’t use it.
The second paragraph’s last sentence seems strange, as it’s not clear what Lambert is actually being credited for, or what role Wiles played.
The sentence beginning The success... is too long, and needs to be split.
The episode's draft script was titled "Dalek Cutaway" – is this not already stated earlier in the paragraph?
Casting and filming
Jeremy Young, who played Lowery, had previously starred – consider amending to ‘Young had previously starred’, as he has already been introduced.
The sentence beginning He acted in "Mission to the Unknown" – is off-topic imo, and should be cut out. Ditto the sentence beginning Robert Cartland, who played Malpha....
to avoid both hiring Barry Jackson and erecting the set – consider amending to something like ‘so as to avoid having to re-hire Jackson and rebuild the set’, to improve the prose.
Broadcast and ratings
The episode was broadcast on BBC1 on 9 October 1965 - why is this needed, when the information is either in the table or elsewhere in the text?
Critical response
in the following serial – to avoid MOS:FORCELINK, readers may find it useful to introduce the serial by name, perhaps with a mention that it was a story set during the Trojan War.
the design of Malpha – there are no clues as to what this character looked like, or why the design was a challenge. The inclusion of a non-free image (or a brief explanation) here might be useful to readers who could be unfamiliar with the appearance of the monsters. Nice image, AM.
Recreation
Whilst the recreated episode is clearly connected with the topic, I’m unclear why so there’s so much detailed information in this section. I would for instance, not include details bout the support from actors the project received, the work of the fashion department, the sourcing of the foliage, some of the information about the Dalek voices, the interruption to filming that occurred, the documentary, and the critics’ comments.
Now an academic – ‘By now an academic’ would make better sense, I think. (see MOS:REALTIME for more information about the word now).
Notes, References, Bibliography
Notes b and e need to be written using proper sentences.
I would be wary of using the thesis (Ref 29 (Ireland)). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why it should not be used as a reference.
Why do you think Ref 44 (Amaya) is a reliable source?
Consider using the Hyphenator tool (here) to ensure all the ISBN numbers are formatted in a similar way.
External links
The YouTube video of the recreated episode (here) could I think be added, (or you could use another page which has a link). This should OK to do, as the episode has been placed by the BBC on "the official home for Doctor Who on YouTube" (see WP:COPYVIOEL).
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 14 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Amitchell125. I've gone through and addressed most of your concerns. Regarding ref 44: Erik Amaya has extensive experience at Comic Book Resources (during the time it is considered reliable) and Bleeding Cool (reliable), and the information cited is uncontroversial, so I consider it reliable in this instance. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 00:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps repetitive next to the table, the broadcast date information is consistent with previous stories. It might look more out-of-place here since this is the only one-episode story, but I prefer the consistency.
I'd definitely be reluctant to cite Ireland's thesis for actual analysis or interpretation, but in this instance it's only being used to verify the contents of the thesis itself, which is mentioned in prose, so I think it's suitable.
Thanks again. Please let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 11:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing the article now, many thanks for all your efforts. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
