Talk:Invasion of the Bane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Invasion of the Bane has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] I liked it

I liked it. It was definitely "up there" with both "modern" Doctor Who and Torchwood. The photos in her attic were cool, though my scantiness on the original series means I didn't recognise Harry Sullivan. I hope the series proper will reveal Maria as thirteen, 'cause the pilot didn't. K-9's been in space a year and a half - i.e. it's now Middle 2008 - so that means he left to do that as good as immediately after School Reunion. I liked Kelsie Hooper's curiosity in what "wasn't on the tour", though her general pooh-poohing of extraterrestrials gibed with neither The Christmas Invasion nor The Runaway Bride. The clip of Mary's species we saw ages ago was cool being established on the side of good and not evil. Overall, thumbs up and I can't wait for the series itself [User: Stripey].

I loved it! the Bane were evil-looking, right up there with the slitheen, an evil fizzy drink was a great idea, cant wait for the next! [user:tanhony43]

The whole "pooh-poohing" of aliens seems to be a bit of a recurring theme in Doctor Who and spinoffs actually, some people simply refusing to accept it despite the evidence, such as Rhys thinking that terrorists were putting halloucigens in the water supply to cause mass halloucinations... Xmoogle 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page needs a serious update. --208.17.215.235 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be very very wrong, but doesn't the attic also include Bobo, the owl from Clash of the Titans, as well as a small model of Tik-Tok from Return to Oz?

[edit] Channel

Which channel was this broadcast on? Richard75 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it but i presume it was BBC one. CDuck2 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release

The DVD is coming 29th. of October according to BBC Shop. Maybe something for the article? Davhorn 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added a note in the Broadcast/Releases section. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preceded by...

Would it not be appropriate to list School Reunion? Strictly speaking, that is the immediate predecessor to the first episode, in the show's continuity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.125.15 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same series. So no, I don't think that's a good idea. — Edokter • Talk • 11:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does function as a poorly disguised pilot. For what that's worth. --Aderack 06:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, don't think so. The episode's intent wasn't a spin-off series but rather a nostalgic piece for fans of the classic series. DonQuixote (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some of the plot is written in in-universe language: "Archetype", "butterfly-like alien species", "Bane ingredient", also instead of bluelinking "met a man" and "met by chance", these things should be explained or the actual links to the episodes themselves shown and described very briefly somehow.
2. Factually accurate?: No need for redlink for "Cook, Benjamin". I noticed many cites from gallifreyone.com. Could use some other variations in sources, to further assert notability. Mention in other books, newspapers, critical reviews, etc.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. Broadcast, reception, and release - this should not be combined into one section, but each be separate sections, and each expanded upon. Also, a Production section is missing.
4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here, written in neutral manner.
5. Article stability? Passes here, article appears stable, no conflicts evident on talk page.
6. Images?: One image, fair use rationale given.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. "The Archetype" was the name given to the character until the last scene, so it's like using "Kelsey", "Maria", or "Sarah Jane". I don't know how "butterfly-like" is in-universe either. The rest, however, are fixed. Will (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Redlink removed. Outpost Gallifrey is considered a reliable source and is more of a news aggregator. The same can be said about A Brief History of Time Travel. I don't recall any newspaper coverage; this was aired alongside how many films that day. I don't think it should be failed for that reason though.
  3. Why shouldn't it? A GA in the same project passed with this section, and it's in the Wikiproject's style guide. And there is a production section.
  • Outpost Gallifrey is a "fan website". This article really needs some better sources, or else the article doesn't really assert notability or coverage in other secondary sources very well. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  • My mistake, the Production section looks fine. But the Broadcast, reception, and release section should still be split up into separate subsections, and expanded. As it is, it's relatively terse. I will request a second opinion on the Review. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
I made some minor corrections throughout the article when reviewing it, and I too think that the last section would benefit from being split up, but it wouldn't be required. However, the section should be expanded further. Is there anything more that can be said about the DVD (reviews, sales, commentary, bonus features, etc.) Also, it may be better to find another more reliable source for the release date, as the BBC Shop may be seen as spam. Can a source be added for the statement about the novel being released for the first time since the particular episode? If the section can be expanded any further, I don't see why it shouldn't pass if the above issues are addressed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really annoys me is people doubting OG's reliability because it is a fansite. OG is very good for fact checking and accuracy. Look at their Canon Keeper's Guide, which cites about fifty people for fact checking and research. I've removed the DVD and book notes as there's lack of context. Finding more notes for reception is tricky though, because this was aired on New Years Day against Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. In fact, I've searched both OG and Google News for reviews, neither of which come up with any. Will (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Passing - No significant outstanding issues. Offering a second opinion. Passing. Huzzah. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)