Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dalek

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Joewithajay and Doctor Who. Sandy (Talk) 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FAR as it fails criterion 1. c. Lacks sufficient cites. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Could you give a few examples of uncited statements that you think are problematic? Dalek#References gives many sources, and I believe that all of the references to specific Doctor Who stories are cited parenthetically in-line. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the footnotes are not formatted properly, consider using {{cite web}}. Jay32183 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of External jumps that need to be addressed. Sandy (Talk) 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you here. What are external jumps? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Look (for example) in the Computer games section at the end: there are external jumps to off-Wiki websites. The content should be wikified, or the external jumps should be converted to references, or the links should be included in External links. The main Wiki article should be Wiki content, with external content given in References or External links. A lot of it may also be commercial or spam or advertisement. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed these, but having looked at the games I share Sandy's concern about whether they really merit mention in the article. We can talk that out on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has a mere 7 cites so I shouldn't need to give examples, but I will if necessary. Be warned though, I'm quite vigilant lol. LuciferMorgan 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The book sources need to be checked and cleaned up, as the article is marked as having invalid ISBNs. -Fsotrain09 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I can see, it passes that criterion quite nicely. Yes, there are 7 cites in nots, but then you have to consider the more generalised references in the following section. Plus a good read of the Doctor Who Wikiproject might shed some more light on the subject at hand. --JB Adder | Talk 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment No FAC would achieve the star with 7 cites, and this article is no different. It doesn't meet criterion 1. c. at all. LuciferMorgan 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is inaccurate. The article has much more than 7 cites, all taken from direct on-screen information and all cited parenthetically instead of by footnotes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is wholly accurate - it has 7 inline cites. Inline citations are needed, and this "parenthetically" business is pure nonsense in the vein of the Operation Downfall FAR. I would suggest converting them to inline cites. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Prehaps the {{cite episode}} template can help. Jay32183 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Lucifer didn't say there are only 7 inline cites; he said 7 cites, which is definitely not true. Cites are still cites - it would be more accurate to say that the cites are not in a proper format. To say the references/cites are not there at all is completely blinkered and that is nonsensical. That being said, converting those cites to inline is a relatively inconsequential and technical exercise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned parenthetical inline citations in the article, but almost all of the parentheticals are just years. Only listing the year is not sufficient in terms of varifiability. Also cite.php is being used and the inline citation method needs to be consistant, especially in a Featured Article. Please understand that this is a review, you don't need to argue to keep or remove now. Some one has brought up an issue. Acknowleging that there could be an improvement but refusing to act on it because it is "inconsequential" doesn't really make sense in this case. Jay32183 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The citations are to the specific stories/episodes, and the years they were broadcast. In addition, where did I refuse to act on it? I said it was a technical issue rather than a substantive one, not that I didn't want to, or wouldn't fix it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: is it being said that a sentence like this:

Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks, The Space Museum (1965) and Planet of the Daleks (1973).

should be changed to this:

Once the mutant is removed, the casing itself can be entered and operated by humanoids, as seen in The Daleks[1], The Space Museum[2] and Planet of the Daleks[3].
==References==
  1. ^ "The Escape". Writer Terry Nation, Director Christopher Barry, Producer Verity Lambert. Doctor Who. BBC, London. 1964-01-04.
  2. ^ "The Dimensions of Time". Writer Glyn Jones, Director Mervyn Pinfield, Producer Verity Lambert. Doctor Who. BBC. BBC One, London. 1965-05-01.
  3. ^ "Planet of the Daleks, Episode Five". Writer Terry Nation, Director David Maloney, Producer Barry Letts. Doctor Who. BBC. BBC One, London. 1973-05-05.

Because if that's really considered a significant improvement, I can do that. (Incidentally, it will significantly increase the article's size.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs go after the punctuation, see WP:FN. Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was suggesting with the cite episode template, and it should help satisfy the nominator's request for inline citations. I wouldn't worry about the article length too much. I believe the standard for featured articles is to only consider readable prose when determining the article's size. I did not mean to imply anyone here was unwilling to work, I was just hoping to avoid an argument that happens from time to time. Jay32183 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Personally, I think that having that many footnotes is less aesthetically pleasing than simply linking to the Wikipedia page for the individual serial, which contains all the information, but if there's a consensus that this form of citation is preferred I'll go with the consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Inline citations are required as part of verifiability. LuciferMorgan 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are required - where appropriate. And inline citation is not syonymous with dinky footnotes. Having said that, the suggested footnotes above are excellent, and if the authors are prepared to add them for people who like to count them, then I'm sure we will all be content. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is perfectly fine to me.....endnotes are somewhat archaic, so I respect the progressive thinking of the authors of this article. — Deckiller 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now you tell me, after I did this! ;-) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • XD it's all good, I was just paraphrasing what my English professor said about endnotes :). Great article BTW, as per the norm from WPWHO. — Deckiller 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Whole paragraphs still remain uncited. So no it isn't excellent or perfectly fine. Still needs a lot more work - just splashing a few inline cites here and there doesn't make an article meet 1. c. Also, if the authors are that progressive, why didn't they keep this article up to FA standards? Why is this at FAR? Exactly, because it doesn't meet FA standards. LuciferMorgan 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I fully intend to finish the citations: the diff I posted above was only the beginning of the work. As for the article being at FA standard, clearly it was considered up to FA standard at one point. Now, perhaps standards have been raised since then, which is fine — but that doesn't mean that the authors don't care about maintaining FA standard. I'm going away this weekend, but will continue the citation work when I return. This stuff takes time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You should have plenty of time. The FAR process is two weeks, and the FARC process is two weeks but it won't close if good faith efforts to improve the article are being made at a reasonable pace, which you seem to be willing to do. Jay32183 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article. All info there should also be in the body of the article and inline cited there, not in the lead section. LuciferMorgan 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a query regarding the section on the major appearances by daleks in novels. Is the 'Novels' section intended to only list original stories? The novels which are listed appear to be relatively recent original novels, rather than, for example, the 1970s novels which were based upon the television episodes like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, Day of the Daleks etc. If so, it may help to clarify this in the heading or with a line of explanatory text. Also, for consistency, it would help to include the year of publication for the novels and the audioplays, to give the reader an idea of how they fit into the Dr Who chronology. Jazriel 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. I think that "original novels" should adequately distinguish these books from the Target novelizations, which are or should be mentioned under the episode they were adapted from. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Culture" section reads very much like original research, and is wholly uncited. LuciferMorgan 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is greatly improved, but I still see some referencing needs - one example:
    • When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme. After much negotiation between the BBC and the Nation estate (which at one point appeared to completely break down), an agreement was reached. According to media reports, the initial disagreement was due to the Nation estate demanding levels of creative control over the Daleks' appearances and scripts that were unacceptable to the BBC. However, talks between Tim Hancock and the BBC progressed more productively than had been expected, and in August 2004 an agreement was reached for the Daleks' appearance in the 2005 series.
  • Sandy (Talk) 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now added two BBC News Online cites to the paragraph quoted above. I hope that's better? Angmering 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Better, but that was only an example. The History section has a lot of historical information that isn't cited. Sandy (Talk) 13:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Status: How about this one? I see citations now in areas people were concerned about. Marskell 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Not all areas though. LuciferMorgan 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
History (which contains a lot of referencable fact) is still largely uncited - move to FARC to give editors more time to finish work. Sandy (Talk) 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful if {{citation needed}} were added to the statements that are of particular concern. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Last time I did that, I was reprimanded. LuciferMorgan 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll add tags, since they've been requested. Sandy (Talk) 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I added cite tags to the History section only, which was undercited. I found several instances of WP:WTA while there, and suggest that the article is going to need an independent copy edit once more thorough referencing is done. Here's a prose sample from the section I just tagged:
However, despite this adoration, the Daleks were forever associated with Doctor Who. Nation, who jointly owned the intellectual property rights to them with the BBC, therefore had the problem of owning a money-making concept that proved nearly impossible to sell to anyone else and was dependent on the BBC wanting to produce stories featuring the creatures.[citation needed]
I think every section is undercited, only the History section is the most undercited. It's nice people are working on the article though. LuciferMorgan 02:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
During this FAR process, the article has gone from 7 footnotes to 67 (as of this edit), and you still think it's undercited? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do, as I just stated. There isn't many cites considering the article's size, though there have been improvements to editor's credits. LuciferMorgan 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lots of work done. Moving it down because there was not consensus not to. Marskell 06:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - A lot of work done, the 1c criteria has been fulfilled successfully. Wiki-newbie 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - Whole paragraphs still uncited. LuciferMorgan 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — the article currently has 69 citations, and is more thoroughly cited than many other featured articles (e.g. Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu, Calvin and Hobbes, Søren Kierkegaard, etc.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I still see a [citation needed]. A FA should be nowhere tagged like that.--Yannismarou 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If that's all that's bothering you, the offending sentence could easily be removed pending a citation. (as of the above comment, there were two {{cn}} tags. I added one citation and commented out the other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article looks good. The editors working on it have done a fantastic job. - Lex 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per Josiah. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice all the editors from the Doctor Who Wikiproject are here to use their keeps - how convenient. LuciferMorgan 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Should you recuse yourself as well since you nominated this for FAR? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not part of the Doctor Who Wikiproject. My "keep" came from looking at the article, checking the history to examine the changes since this FAR started, and coming to the opinion that this article is up to FA standards. You disagree with me and that's perfectly fine. But your disagreement doesn't give you the right to assume these keeps are in bad faith. - Lex 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I have every right to come to my own conclusions - you, nor anyone else will stop that. And my conclusion is most of these keeps are in bad faith. With the exception of yourself, the others are part of the Doctor Who Wikiproject. Having said that, I still think all the keeps including yours are in bad faith - I have every right to come to that conclusion. There's still many uncited, weasly statements in the article, and all the Doctor Who fanatic editors blindly assume that teaming up here will save their article - improving it will, just saying keep won't. Article definitely needs further work. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I find this blatant assumption of bad faith quite offensive, actually. A substantial amount of work has been done on this article since the FAR began, and your characterization of editors is rather uncivil — as if being a Doctor Who fan automatically made one's judgment as a Wikipedian suspect. Your opinions about the content and quality of the article are welcome; your opinions about the motives of your fellow Wikipedians are not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell you what - I'll remove my "keep" vote if you remove your "remove" vote. After all, if you're saying that the Wikiproject editors have a conflict of interest, since you nominated this for review, so do you. How about that? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell you what - how about instead of making BS "keeps" without adequate reasons for them, whereas my remove is based on inline citations, how about you give us good reasons for your keep as opposed to "fantastic"? Better still - how about you cite the sections that remain totally uncited? Have your vote, I don't deny anyone a vote. LuciferMorgan 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My keep is based on the same reasons as Josiah's, which is based on the number of inline citations, and far more cited than many other FAs out there, including some which have recently been passed. Nowhere do I use the adjective "fantastic" - you can take that up with Superlex. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I took a look at the version of the article from when it was initially named an FA, and it seems to be in even better shape, reference-wise, than it was then. --Brian Olsen 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "movement" and "construction" sections are still under cited. Jay32183 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How about now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I feel those sections are good now. The only sections low on citations now are the "parodies" and "pop culture" and I'm not sure how necessary they'd be since those are mostly mentioning that certain things exist. Jay32183 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • List - Remove unless fixed:
    • External link farm, including commercial links. Pls cleanup per WP:EL and WP:NOT
    • ISBN please on Terry Nation book in References
    • (Fancrufty - inadequate reference - ref is to a Wiki article - *who* says they have a poetic quality, and where - exact ref please - in fact, many of the footnotes are to other Wiki articles - Wiki is not a reliable source) Some of the more elaborate Dalek battlecries have an almost poetic quality about them (for example, "Advance and Attack! Attack and Destroy! Destroy and Rejoice!" from the televised story The Chase).[65]
    • Book references for specific statements need page numbers - for example - ^ Bentham, Jeremy (May 1986). Doctor Who — The Early Years. England: W.H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
    • There are massive uncited sections from Parodies onward, including a statement about someone posing nude that certainly should be cited.
    • Prose problems and redundancies throughout - article needs a thorough copy edit - one random sample: The reason for the multiple titles is that in the show's early years each individual episode had a different name and overall story titles were used only by the production office. Subsequently, several different overall story titles were circulated by fandom without access to the correct records.[46] See: Doctor Who story title controversy.
  • There's still time to bring this to standard if someone gets out a big red pen. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sandy, many of the references that appear to be to Wikipedia articles are referring to specific television episodes, and use {{cite episode}} because that was recommended above. The citations are not using the Wikipedia article as reference, but the television episodes about which those articles are written. It's the same as using {{cite book}} for a book which also has a Wikipedia page: you're referencing the book, not the Wikipedia article about it.
I've removed several extraneous links (thanks for pointing the commercial ones out, as I hadn't noticed that those had been added), and I'll remove the "Dalek humour" ones if people think it's necessary (I think it's a rather nice addition, but I understand if people feel that it's inappropriate). I've provided the ISBN for Terry Nation's Dalek Special and a citation for Katy Manning posing nude with a Dalek. I've also tweaked the specific sentence you mention, and will try to get around to a full copyedit in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand cite episode, so I'm striking that and the other items you've completed (still needs to know who considers that dialogue as "poetic"). Sandy (Talk) 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "almost poetic quality" sentence (although I'm sure I've seen that referenced in print, after several days of searching I can't find it). I've also added a few more references in the last few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of cite episode, there's still a lot of original research in the article. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you please give a few examples? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah ok will do - thanks for kindly requesting, which goes a long way.

1. "The non-humanoid shape of the Dalek, unlike anything that had been seen on television before, did much to enhance the creatures' sense of menace. With no familiar points of reference, it was a far cry from the traditional "bug-eyed monster" of science fiction that Doctor Who series creator Sydney Newman wanted the show to avoid. The unsettling form of the Daleks, coupled with their alien voices, also made many believe for a while that the props were wholly mechanical and operated by remote control."

"Sense of menace"? Says whom? Are we interpreting the reaction of the TV audience? It's wholly possible many found their shape rather ludicrous. "Unsettling form"? This could be original research also - maybe perhaps there are TV critics that can lend weight and authority to the above points of view? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. That paragraph has a citation from Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe. (Howe is a professional historian of television in general and Doctor Who in particular; citing him on the subject of Doctor Who is roughly akin to citing David McCullough on the subject of Harry S. Truman or John Adams.)
Here are some relevant excerpts from that work: I'll let you decide if they're sufficient to justify the paragraph or not. If they're not, I'll either reword the paragraph or find more sources.

The Daleks are undoubtedly the highlight of the story. Nothing even remotely like them had ever been seen before, either on television or in the cinema, and they dominate every scene in which they appear. Their sedate, gliding movements and harsh, electronic voices make for an unforgettable combination. The fact that they are constantly in motion, their three stick-like 'limbs' twitching with alien life even when they are otherwise stationary, creates a very creepy effect. ...

The arrival of the Daleks has often been cited, with some justification, as the development that sealed Doctor Who's popular success. Certainly the creatures' appeal was immediately noted by journalists, as is apparent from the following review by Peter Quince that appeared in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner dated 11 January 1964: 'As for spine chillery... well, I take back what I said a few weeks ago about Doctor Who having gotten off to such a bad start it could never recover. It has recovered, and, though it still has its daft moments, it also produces some first class sensations — as, for example, last Saturday, when the Dalek "intelligence" had been lifted unseen from its robot and placed in a blanket on the floor, the episode closed with something very horrible indeed just beginning to crawl from underneath the blanket. So horrible was it, that I very much doubt whether I shall have the courage this evening to switch on to see what it was. Lovely stuff!"....

The Daleks are one of those science-fiction ideas that, in retrospect, seem so ridiculously simple that it is hard to understand why no-one had done anything similar before. There had been many different robotic monsters previously created for films and television shows, but these had always turned out looking like a man in a suit. Terry Nation must have realised this and, in his scripted description of the Daleks, specified that the creatures should have no visible legs and should glide along on a base .... [a description of the Daleks' design follows, which I won't bother to transcribe].... The resultant prop was both unsettling and unique. The simple 'pepperpot' shape with its three emerging appendages — eye-stalk, sucker-stick and gun-arm — was memorable, as was the strange gliding motion. The illusion of an alien creature was completed by the harsh electronic voice that grated instructions and barked out orders.

To viewers, the Daleks seemed truly alien beings — indeed, fooled by their relatively small stature, many initially believed that they were operated by remote control rather than by actors inside them. This was the intended effect, and the Daleks were a huge success. ....

Personally, I think that justifies the paragraph in question, but perhaps my judgment is skewed by my closeness to the subject matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. "Merchandising" is undercited (only two citations in its subsections), and IMO "Popular culture" needs another look: I see some stubby paragraphs, and, in general, the prose in this particular sections does not look "brilliant" to me (after the first paragraph the particular section gets almost like a "trivia" section).--Yannismarou 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not written to the required "professional" standard. Here are examples.
    • Second sentence: "The mutated descendants of the Kaled people (referred to in the first Dalek serial as "Dals")[1] of the planet Skaro, they are integrated with tank-like mechanical casings; a ruthless race bent on universal conquest and domination." It's a snake that needs chopping up; the semicolon is grammatically wrong.
    • Third sentence: "They are pitiless, without compassion or remorse. They are also, collectively, the greatest alien adversaries of the Time Lord known as the Doctor." Flabby. Why not "Without compassion or remorse, they are the greatest adversaries of the Time Lord known as "the Doctor"."? Minus six words.
  • "and were first introduced"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "in the second Doctor Who serial"—Do you mean "series", or perhaps "episode"?
  • "with the viewing audience"—"with viewers"?
  • "They have become synonymous with Doctor Who and their behaviour and catchphrases are part of British popular culture"—With two "ands", what's wrong with a comma after the first?
  • "The Daleks have appeared with every incarnation of the Doctor, with the possible exception of the Eighth Doctor in the 1996 television movie (where only their voices were briefly heard)." The last bit: what, you saw them being silent for a lengthy period? No, you need: "(where only their voices were heard, briefly).", or something like that.

That's the lead alone—well, there are other things there I haven't listed. This needs to be confined to the dustbins of Skaro. Tony 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While this is the least of your expressed concerns, "serial" is the correct word: classic Doctor Who was broadcast as serials of (usually) 4 to 7 episodes. In the programme's first few years, the serials did not have on-screen names, which has led to some confusion about what to call each story. For the serial which introduced the Daleks, there are several alternative titles, which is why the article uses that circumlocution.
That said, your other concerns about the writing are legitimate ones, and I'll see what I can do (time permitting). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have amended the offending sentences. I'm sure there are other prose problems which can be addressed if anyone has the time to point them out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, comma before, not after "and", as you probably realised. Now, fixing just these examples is beside the point. I was demonstrating that the whole text his this density of problems. At this stage, I'd be going cap in hand to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors, asking for an urgent job. Tony 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the LoCE can be most effective on an article that meets all the other criteria - best used when only the prose needs attention. This article has over 40KB of prose (needs trimming), and still has a lot of uncited text - not sure it's ready for a copy edit, as that could be misused effort if the text is later pruned or found to be uncited, original research. The lead is also rambling and choppy, not yet a well-organized summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
True; sorry, I should have accounted for that. Tony 07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for another look: still not able to strike my remove.

  • A random check of the references looks good, but there are still a few questions:
    • I'm unable to find information on their website about this source - it looks like a personal webpage (not sure), and doesn't seem to be a reliable source. ^ THE DALEK CHRONICLES (2004-04-28). Retrieved on 2006-11-28.
      • I've replaced this with a citation from the book Doctor Who: The Sixties. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Based on one letter to the editor, I wonder how the word "many" is justified in the text this letter is citing? ^ Michael Anthony Basil (2003-10-06). Science Fiction Weekly - Letters to the Editor. Retrieved on 2006-12-18. If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like one letter from one fan is the basis for the statement about many fans. When the new series was announced, many fans hoped the Daleks would return once more to the programme.
    • Jessesword.com seems to give more info about the reliability of this source, which could be included in the ref: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
      • Either someone else has added the citation you're mentioning, or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Could you please clarify? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are still cite tags throughout the text - I counted at least eight.
      • Down to one now, and I'm still investigating a likely source for it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't look at the prose, as Tony has done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Until Sandy's and Tony's concerns have been met fully, this one should be removed. LuciferMorgan 12:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They've been met in part; cite requests down to two, for instance, since Sandy's last comment. I've contacted Josiah again. Marskell 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi — sorry for my tardy reply. Since Marskell's note, Jeffpw has posted to Talk:Dalek saying that the article has passed FAR [1]. Is this accurate? There are still a couple of citations that I haven't been able to supply (yet), and Tony's prose concerns haven't really been addressed. On the other hand, the original issue of concern (insufficient cites) is certainly no longer an issue, with 85 distinct footnotes. Obviously, I've put a lot of work into the article during the FAR period, and I'm happy if it has passed muster, but I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify the situation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify. I only completed the administrative tasks that another user Diez2, initiated but did not follow through on. I have contacted several people about this, as he has now delisted 4 articles from FARC this evening, none of which were carried out appropriately. I do not feel procedure and protocols have been followed in this matter, and am very concerned about it. Please see my talk page and his for more details. Thanks, Jeffpw 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I said Tony's and Sandy's concerns should be met in full. I welcome any efforts in addressing this, but if they've only been partly filled this one should be removed. LuciferMorgan 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, this has been reopened for the time-being; hope this doesn't throw too much of monkey wrench into things. As Josiah is posting within the last 24, we can wait to give him time. If Sandy can be moved to strike her remove re the references, maybe I'll just try to ce it myself and then we can (properly) close the thing. Marskell 19:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandy can only strike her remove when her concerns are addressed, and as concerns copyedit it would have to meet Tony's concerns. Good luck though. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We're down to one {{cn}}, which I'm actively working on. Sandy seemed to think that it wasn't appropriate to ask for copyediting help until the citation requests were finished — do we have time to do this? I know that the two weeks are up, but much of the review period was over Christmas/New Year's, when many editors were away. I'm happy to continue to work to improve specific sentences and elements, but I'm at a bit of a loss when the concerns are so vague ("prose not brilliant" and the like). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well once Sandy's ref concerns have been met, message Tony about the prose. LuciferMorgan 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've commented out the last {{cn}}, which I couldn't find a source for after several days of hunting. Sandy's talk page says she's travelling till the 23rd, so I went ahead and asked for help at the League of Copyeditors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay: I'm struggling to catch up, but will read now and strike my objections as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment—Still not well-enough written. My eyes went straight down to the opening of "Physical characteristics" for a random sample.
    • "Man-sized"—can we find a gender-neutral term? "Kill a man"—Why not "person"? Are you sure that no woman has ever been killed? And there are other examples of guys being everything, too. This is unacceptable in the 21st century.
      • "Kill a man" is a reference to one specific incident in which a Dalek used its "plunger" to crush a man's skull — it's only happened once, and yes, it was a man. That said, "man-sized" is fair comment, and I'll try to weed out any other sexist language I can find. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Metric equivalents, please (no, give us the metric, and if you must, bracket the US equivalent).
      • Metric equivalents have been given, but most of the original sources were in Imperial measurements (not US — these are British sources). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "but various episodes have shown Daleks whose arms end in a tray"—"Various"? I'd have thought that the notion that each episode offers something different would be too obvious to need pointing out.
    • Redundant "alsos". Tony 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've asked the League of Copyeditors for assistance, but will continue to do what I can until they show up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Great. By the way, they don't "show up"; they decide on the merits of your article whether it's worthy of their excellent input. Tony 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks — good to know. It's my first encounter with the League. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment It's been suggested this article has come under undue criticism from FAR/C commentators as its a sci-fi FA on several talk pages. I would like it to be noted that every article at FARC comes under fair, objective and thorough scrutiny, regardless of whether it's a sci-fi FA. Furthermore, I personally happen to like the Daleks. Also, my fave band of all time is Marilyn Manson, and if you scroll above, you'll see I've nominated that article for FAR. My apologies if you and other Wikiproject Doctor Who members have obtained a flawed opinion of us people at the FAR/C process. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Back for another look. External jumps and the external link farm appear corrected; referencing is much improved. I still have the following list:

  • Their most infamous catchphrase is "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice ... Why is it ex-ter-min-ate rather than the correct ex-ter-mi-nate? Is that the way it's syllabicized according to the reliable sources, or is that a Wiki-mistake?
  • Regarding the question above about one source - this is an example only, all should be checked: Science Fiction Citations for OED - Dalek (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2006-12-01. This reference gives no publisher. Clicking on it reveals jessesword.com - warranting further investigation (is it a personal website, is it a reliable source?) http://www.jessesword.com/ gives an author and information which seem to rise to the level of WP:RS. This kind of information (author, website publisher) should be included in the references. Pls doublecheck that all websources identify the publisher and author (when available). (UPdate: corrected that one myself - am now going through the rest.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've corrected this one, but this is making me realize that I'm a bit confused about who the "publisher" of a website is when it's not an organization: do we list the same individual as both author and publisher? (In this case, Jesse Sheidlower appears to be both.) I'll try to look over the rest of the references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency in book footnotes - some have p. or pp., while most have just a number, and some are still missing page numbers. Pls have a second look, with an eye towards consistency.
  • I still see weasle words - examples: This belief is thought to be the reason why Daleks ... and This is probably not an innate ability, ...
  • The culture section has a lot of unreferenced assertions which, without citation, appear as original research or opinion - we need to know according to whom.
  • There are still significant copyedit needs. I started reading at the Culture section, and encountered this: Due to their frequent defeats by the Doctor, he has become a sort of bogeyman in Dalek culture, and the mention of his name often gives them pause.

A copyedit is needed: Tony already gave examples. I do think the article has come far enough that it would be productive to get LoCE involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this another look, Sandy, and for contacting the League again. I fear that the copyediting needs may exceed my meagre skills. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything a matter of opinion always needs citations. Congratulations on your efforts thus far though.LuciferMorgan 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Still working on this. LuciferMorgan added a few citation requests a day or two ago, which I've taken care of, but that's slowed down the more difficult tasks of finding citations for the "Culture" section and copyediting. (Still no word from the LoCE.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In CE'ing a bit of the first part, I found the writing was good. It does fall down in Culture, however. To many unneeded emphasizers and not enough cites.
All in all I think this is close. Marskell 09:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've decided it would be quicker and easier to fix the references myself: can someone pls tell us what this is and what makes it a reliable source? I can't find anything to indicate it's anything other than someone's personal AOL members website.
    • Balcombe, Chris. Daleks and the Kit Kat advert. personal website of the Dalek operator. Retrieved on 2007-01-19. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm... yes, it is someone's AOL website, but it's the AOL website of someone who was involved in the production of that particular advertisement. I had thought that might qualify as "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", but I can see that it's a bit borderline. I'll try to find a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I've found a YouTube clip of the advertisement in question here, but we probably can't use that because it's a copyright violation. I can't find any reference to the ad in print, either. Should we delete the sentence, or is there some way to use the references, which are problematic in themselves but indicate clearly that the ad in question did exist? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • If the original website is a reliable source, it works - I just couldn't find anywhere on the website that indicated who the author was or what makes him reliable - can you locate it on the site? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The author (Chris Balcombe) is indicated here, on the front page of his website (scroll down). I suppose that technically identifying him as one of the operators is slightly OR-ish — I deduced it from the photograph showing him in the Dalek on the Kit Kat page [2] and the one showing him (named as Chris Balcombe in the caption) with Sylvester McCoy on the main page. (I think it's safe to say that this and this are the same person.) As I said, it's borderline whether this qualifies as a reliable source or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • An alternate source would be better - there's nothing there to indicate he's anyone who can speak authoritatively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The article lists this under the same ISBN as both 1998 and 2003, but the ISBN finder lists it as 2004 - which is correct and which edition is used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The ISBN for the first edition (which I have) was incorrect. A different editor added the citations from the second edition (which I don't have a copy of). Should I find the reference in the first edition and change it, for consistency's sake? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That would help; then we can list the book once, and know that the page nos are correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is there now works - no need to find the other page number, now that the confusion is cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Usenet is not a reliable source - since you have two sources on the statement, this ref should go:
    • Dippold, Ron (1992-02-06). Federal Department of Transportation Bulletin #92-132 (USENET post). alt.fan.warlord. Google Groups. Retrieved on 2007-01-15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That was meant to indicate that the joke was of long standing. The USENET citation isn't to verify any particular assertion, just to indicate "this joke existed at least as far back as 1992". I understand that USENET wouldn't be reliable for an assertion of fact, but why isn't it reliable for "this was being said at this point"?
        • I'm OK letting that go since you do have another source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is this reference? It only points to a Wiki article. Is it supposed to be a cite episode?
    • ^ Seaborne, Gilliane (director) (2005). "Dalek", Doctor Who Confidential BBC Wales. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Destiny of the Daleks" is listed once as Episode Two, once as Episode 4, and once with no episode: does the one with no Episode need a number ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That reference is to a facet that's visible in all episodes of the story, so no episode listing is necessary. I suppose the citation could say "episodes 1–4", but that seems redundant to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto for "Remembrance of the Daleks" - there's a part one, a part three, but one with nothing listed - does it need a listing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Same for this one: the reference is to a theme explicitly stated in each episode of the serial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Early Doctor Who serials had titles for each episode. For example, the six episodes of The Dalek Invasion of Earth were individually titled "World's End", "The Daleks", "Day Of Reckoning", "The End Of Tomorrow", "The Waking Ally" and "Flashpoint". (See The Dalek Invasion of Earth#Production.) "Day of Reckoning" is episode 3 of The Dalek Invasion of Earth; "The Dimensions of Time" is episode 2 of The Space Museum. The individual naming of episodes was dropped around 1966. (Incidentally, this is why Doctor Who stories appear to go against the standard MoS style for television episodes: individual episodes are placed in quotation marks, but serials are in italics.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If these items can be addressed, references will be complete; a ce still needs to be done. In case anyone is wondering, the reason I've spent hours in this article is that Doctor Who missing episodes still needs to come up for review for citations lacking, so it seems worth the time for Project members to understand how to cite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sandy, thank you for your help on this. I hope that if we can get Dalek up to snuff, the reviews of other Doctor Who FAs will go more smoothly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm hoping other Doctor Who FAs can be collectively worked upon without review, and in a more relaxed atmosphere. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be good; once this is completed, I do plan to work on the other FAs, whether an actual FAR is filed or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: I've provided some primary source citations for the "Culture" section, but I still have some concerns about it (see Talk:Dalek#"Culture" section). I'd like to have some secondary sources as well, to avoid the appearance of original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Size check By the way, the article is at 41KB prose, which is approaching a limit on too long - you'll all have to watch that the article doesn't grow (see WP:LENGTH). Note that by changing the way the books are cited, I shaved 4KB off the overall size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So, two months today. I'm plodding through a ce, but I'd suggest that this is already within 1a. Everything I'm noticing is very minor—perhaps greater minds can find other problems. There is a bit of purpleness in the prose: three adjectives or nouns ("conquest, domination, and complete conformity") where two will do.
I read that "The naming of early Doctor Who stories is complex and sometimes controversial." Is this the reason for Sandy's link concern? Will it be solved with an initial note explaining how you have settled upon titles? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorta, kinda, ish. We actually have a Wikipedia article on the matter, Doctor Who story title controversy. Basically, in the original series of Doctor Who, a given story was a multi-episode serial; however, for the first few years of the programme, the only titles that were used publicly were names of individual episodes. (So, for the first Doctor Who serial, the episode titles were "An Unearthly Child", "The Cave of Skulls", "The Forest of Fear" and "The Firemaker".) The production team used titles for the serials in-house, but these sometimes changed during production and weren't widely known until years later. This led to some confusion: for two early examples, see here and here.
The Doctor Who WikiProject has decided that for the purpose of article titling, we will use the titles used by the BBC in marketing DVDs and on their Doctor Who website (e.g. here). However, even this decision took some negotiation: see here for a sample of the debate.
Sandy's link concern was a slightly different matter, albeit one with the same origin. The first link in the article uses the title "The Survivors" instead of "The Daleks episode 2", because that was the title under which that episode was broadcast; however, the Wikipedia article on that episode is at The Daleks, so I piped the link. If a reader clicks on "The Survivors" and arrives at The Daleks, he can read down to The Daleks#Production and discover that

The seven episodes of the serial had individual titles: "The Dead Planet", "The Survivors", "The Escape", "The Ambush", "The Expedition", "The Ordeal" and "The Rescue".

(Perhaps we should consider moving episode titles up to an earlier point in the serial articles, but that's another matter.)
Now, I don't think we should have to explain all that to readers of Dalek. I had hoped that the link to Doctor Who story title controversy and the footnote to the Andrew Pixley essay would suffice, but if you think we need to give further explanation I can try to wordsmith something. It'll be tough to avoid self-reference though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
What else remains? Marskell 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm striking my remove, since my concerns have been addressed - if you're fine with the prose, so am I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I'll do is finish going through it, so that all the prose has been checked. The link concern sounds like one of those complicated pup cult "canon" things; I don't think it a remove basis and I trust Josiah's suggestion that readers will find the target they're looking for. Marskell 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Inches away. A little work remaining for "Other appearances". I have left a note on the talk. Marskell 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of, and thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on closing: Sandy has struck the referencing remove and the prose has been gone over. I'm not entirely happy with "Other appearances" and "Merchandise", as I think some of it remains trivial (I removed what I thought was the obvious stuff), but "taking a flamethrower to the place" can often cause more problems than it solves, and I don't think what remains rises to remove. In sum, this has been extensively looked over, the referencing is robust, and the prose is much better. So a keep (finally!). Marskell 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)