Talk:Moonbase 3

Sources needed

Expanded this article as best I could with the limited amount of material available. There are a few additional things that could be put into this article that I am aware of but have no sources to work from:

• I removed the reference to there being 8 episodes plannned. I can find no source for this and haven't come across anything outside this article that would indicate that there were ever more than 6 episodes planned. It may be that the two John Lucarotti episodes, which had different working titles, have been double-counted?
• The quote from Terrance Dicks in the header - presumably this is from the Doctor Who Season 12 Script Book?
• I know I've read somewhere that Terrance Dicks was asked what he thought when the episodes were re-discovered in the Fox archive he replied along the lines that he wished they'd stayed lost. Can anyone find the exact quote and source?

Joe King 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation for GA

Moonbase 3 SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality	A	A	A	A
Neutrality	A	A	A	A
Writing			-	-
Sources	A	A	A	A
Citations	A	A	A	A
01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All the pictures are legal. Good citations and sources (on every paragraph!). The writing is okay, as well as good in terms of NPOV, but is not even close to FA quality. The sentence length does not vary much and is very long on average, especially in the production section. I believe it might make it at this stage, but some improvement with the prose (especially sentence length) could help with that.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now I'm confused - you say the writing isn't up to FA standard; fair enough but this is a GA assessment - does it meet the criteria or does it need to be changed? - Joe King 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I agree that the article could be written better but I believe that for a show that ran for 6 episodes this article does a through job. Good luck getting the article to FA status. Tarret 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. Although the article contains three dead links (tagged for reference), I believe it still meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 10:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Moonbase3Cast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moonbase3Cast.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why this image has been selected for deletion since there is a fair use rationale for its use within this article supplied on the image page. However, I have updated the rationale using the new standard template for such things, which was not in place when the image was originally uploaded and removed the deletion tag - Joe King (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links - Radio Times Letters

I've had a look at fixing the dead link to letters in the RT. So far I've failed to find a replacement. I can see a few options:

• Remove the dead links, since they reference an electronic scan of a physical magazine - so are still valid without the link (I think).
• Leave the links for the moment and hope that BBC Genome eventually goes live (apparently that was supposed to happen last year...), at which point we should be able to re-link to an electronic archive copy of the magazine. --Otus scops (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Concept and setting"

While the available online sources (4, "The Pictorial Compendium" and 34, Action TV Online, at archive.org) place the storyline in the year 2003, a calendar on Conway's desk in episode 4, "Outsiders", shows the date as Friday, April 23 — there was no Friday, April 23, 2003, but there was in 2004. The other available online sources either give no date at all (tv.com, oldfutures.com), or place it "in the 21st century" (IMDB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A60:1775:AF01:224:1DFF:FE77:8DF5 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Moonbase 3

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 01:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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.