Talk:Rose (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Rose (Doctor Who) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 23, 2007
Rose (Doctor Who) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 23, 2008
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Archive

This looks like a page despirite for an Archive you know its needed when the page is incredibly long and still has comments from 2005! - What do you think? --Wiggstar69 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Jockie123 (talk · contribs) recently changed the image from Image:doctorwhorose.jpg to Image:autons.jpg. The new image is nicely dynamic, but I don't think it illustrates the story as well as the old one — for one thing, since the story is called "Rose" it would be nice to have an image of her! I think I'll revert for now, but we can discuss it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrik

I don't believe the shop's name is mentioned, is it? I'll try and re-watch "Rose" again tonight but I believe it is the shop manager who's called Henrik, not the shop? Matthew 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's mentioned in dialogue, but the name "Henrik's" is clearly visible on the shop front and on shopping bags, etc.. The electrician to whom Rose tries to take the lottery money is Wilson. (And the sign on the door reading "Wilson C.E.O." was temporarily confusing to this Yank — this side of the pond, C.E.O. stands for "Chief Executive Officer", and means the top boss, not the electrician ("Chief Electrical Officer", I presume).) —17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Ah, the episode that revived Doctor Who in 2005. And like any article for a Doctor Who episode, it has a hideously long plot summary and listy prose. Alientraveller 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah: lose the bullet points and see what happens? At the moment it looks a bit fragmented. BTW, episode titles, according to MoS, are in "quotation marks", with the series in italics. The JPStalk to me 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the Doctor Who wikiproject, episode names are in italics. This is uniform throughout the Doctor Who articles. JameiLei 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I don't know the circumstances behind that decision but it seems at odds with the MoS. Fair enough if there is consistency with similar articles. The JPStalk to me 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see that the reasoning is that italics are used for story titles. I see a comment on the talk page that directly addresses the use of quotation marks for episode titles rather than stories. Still, I'd hang on until they smooth it out: no point in arguing about it here. The JPStalk to me 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Auton stories

Template:Auton stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says that "Doomsday" plays for the first time when Rose enters the TARDIS ; it doesn't, Rose runs into the TARDIS at the end of the episode with no music playing. Someone should change this.

[edit] "The Derbyshire theme was last heard on television in 1983..."

I am the only one who thinks that sounds iffy? As it doesn't take into account repeats? I'm inclined to rewrite it but I want to see what you guys think. Plus other people like Josiah and Khaosworks are better at rewrites than me anyhoo. --GracieLizzie 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked Copy

"On 8 March, 2005, Reuters reported that a copy of the episode had been leaked onto the Internet, and was being widely traded via the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. The leaked episode did not contain the new arrangement of the theme tune by Murray Gold. The leak was ultimately traced to a third party company in Canada which had a legitimate preview copy. The employee responsible was fired by the company and the BBC is considering further legal action."

Does anyone know if there are any new developments with this story? yettie0711 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was any legal action. Type 40 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undo

Nice to see how 90 mins of work can be undone in 30 seconds. I think this will definatly be the last time I bother with this. I'd also get my donation back if I could. :( yettie0711 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt, but the article was filling up with unimportant trivia and practically every word being wiki-linked multiple times. Please don't be discouraged. You are welcome to edit, but please remember this is an encyclodepia, not a fan site. — Edokter • Talk • 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pre-review

Hello. I don't have time to review this properly at the moment so I won't do anything with tags to leave the way for other reviewers. Initial suggests would be:

  • expand the lead so it covers all of the important points of the article. A three paragraph structure is normally good. Suggest the first to be what is there; the second a brief overview of the plot; and the third to cover reception?
  • "While the site actually exists, it was created specifically for use in television programmes and films." ref?
  • "A French-language version of this series of Doctor Who..." paragraph unsourced.

Good luck. As I say, I'm not "officially" reviewing this in terms of 'on hold' templates etc., so expect another reviewer along at some point. The JPStalk to me 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 23, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. Much of the early article is simplistic narration, and parts of the ending are very dry facts and dates. The lead is a little too brief, though not bad. The plot summary is an exact recount of basically every event, it could use a severe cut-down.
2. Factually accurate?: Semi-pass. Accuracy is great but there are in my opinion too few sources for an article of this length. I understand much of it is sourced from the episode itself, but again, much of it isn't and even though people familiar with the series may find some facts obvious knowledge we still need to source them.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Very thorough discussion of relevant topics, my only minor concern would be that you may be branching a little too far. But then again, there isn't all that much one can say about a TV episode, the article's themes may be all-right after all. (Forgive the monologue.)
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass, I don't think that's such an issue here though.
5. Article stability? Pass, no significant edit warring or yet-unresolved disputes.
6. Images?: Fail. Even though relevant images will likely be fair use, I believe due to the article's length a few annotative images would be great, and really serve to lighten the article up.

Well, that is why in my opinion this article is at the present time unsuited for GA status. Although with a little work, I doubt that reaching GA is far off. This is my first GA review though (and it's very late here), so if you wish I won't be offended if you re-list and try for a second opinion. Good luck.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— +Hexagon1 (t) 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)