Talk:Death Is the Only Answer

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Death Is the Only Answer was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 26, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This redirect 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death Is the Only Answer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Courcelles 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs of the "Writing" section seem out of order; "the children's teacher" is used before the children are introduced, etc...
"The winners were selected by showrunner" Perhaps "The winning script" would make more sense? The judges were picking a (singular) script, not (plural) children.
The BBC press release says "primary school", the article says "It was written via a "Script to Screen" competition in which junior schools were asked". Not being British, I don't know if these terms are interchangeable?
- All junior schools are primary schools, but not all primary schools are junior schools. It's to do with age groups: junior schools don't normally include the under-8s (these are covered by the infant schools). Those schools which cover the whole 4-11 range are normally termed primary schools, even though this term also applies to those with a narrower age range. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Script to Screen" in quotes -- is this part of a bigger series of competitions or something?
The end of the "including the Eleventh Doctor and an enemy of his." sentence is rather awkward sounding.
"part of it — a mysterious liquid" Watch spaced emdashes; these go against MOS:DASH
"The Doctor leaves for another adventure, while a bit of the liquid is left on the floor, moving slowly." Floor of the TARDIS, or wherever Einstein gets off?
"This is a reference to "Utopia", set at the end of the Universe." This is OR.
- That snuck in there recently; deleted. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do any sources tell us how many scripts were actually entered, rather than packets downloaded?
Was this included in the DVD release of the sixth series?

That's all I have. Courcelles 22:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one more, I can't believe I missed. Is this actually notable? Are there sources unrelated to the BBC about this? Any critical response at all? Courcelles 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this soon but to the last point: that's part of the reason I'm nominating this. The second one, "Good as Gold", generated more outside response, but less about production. It's not included on the DVD (I have it so I'll check again, but I'm pretty sure it's not). Both articles could be combined to a "Script to Screen (Doctor Who)" thing, which I've proposed before, but I've never generated much discussion. This article is just under the topic of the sixth series which is close to a GT, which is the other issue. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this actually isn't notable, the usual course of action would be to merge to the series article, which has precedent of being accepted at FTC -- Wikipedia:Featured topics/Supernatural (season 2) comes to mind. I'm not sure what a GA nomination is supposed to solve about this question? Courcelles 00:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had done all that was possible to meet GA criteria. The other issue is whether it fits more with Doctor Who (series 6) or Doctor Who Confidential, as it actually has more ties to the latter (lack of DVD inclusion, etc). I'll bring it up at [[WP:WHO]. If there is no chance of GA, then this could be closed and replaced with a RfC or merge discussion or something more appropriate. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the wikiproject is a good idea, because I really don't think the sources that are here are enough to be notable -- and while notability isn't normally a GA criteria, in this case it runs up against the requirement that GA's not overlook any major aspect of the topic. I'm just baffled, though, given how much media attention DW gets weekly that there aren't the sources out there for this. Courcelles 06:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing not BBC or fansite related I have found so far is this, a teaching magazine. I got to the point in Google where things ceased to be relevant. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Digital Spy source, announcing it was to be aired with some quotes from Moffat and Smith. Hardly enough on its own to really help with notability, however. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any more updates? Sorry, I've been on the road (and then WP went through its 'half an hour to load a page' phase for most of this week.) Courcelles 03:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got no response from the project. I'm just waiting for consensus. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month and a half since the request was made to the project, and it has yielded only one response, from Bellum Stellarum above. At this point, it's clear that the Wikiproject isn't going to produce a consensus; I suggest that the review proceed without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just failed this review, as ultimately the sources aren't there isn't the sourcing here to meet criteria 3a, and we just can't gloss over that, even though I largely believe it is systemic to the topic, and not a fault of the editors here. I'd hopied that this could change with time and research, but it hasn't in around 7 weeks; if it does in the future, please renomnate the article. Courcelles 20:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]