Talk:Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Russell T Davies came up with the premise of the Doctor Who episode "Empire of Death" up to 50 years before he wrote it?

• Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-finale-fifty-years-newsupdate/

• ALT1: ... that the twist of the Doctor Who episode "Empire of Death" was inspired by the Star Wars sequels? Source: https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-season-14-ending-ruby-sunday-parentage-rey-star-wars-comparison-explained-showrunner/
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/A9 dualling project

Moved to mainspace by OlifanofmrTennant (talk) and TheDoctorWho (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC).

• Article is neutral, free from copyvio, suitably referenced, and meets the length and newness criteria—moved to mainspace on 23 June, within seven days of this nomination. The hooks are succinct, neutral, interesting, and reliably sourced; I've changed "fifty years" to "up to 50 years" for clarity and concision. QPQ is done (though your reviews should be a bit more detailed). This is good to go! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @OlifanofmrTennant and Rhain: unfortunately, I'm not sure the hook verifies – Davies says there's stuff in the finale that I must have been thinking of for 40 or 50 years, which isn't equivalent to the premise of episode. If the hook is edited to match, I'd recommend attributing to Davies instead of using wikivoice and saying "decades" instead of saying the less clear "up to 50 years". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

    Good catch. I would recommend this as an alternative:

    • ALT0b: ... that according to writer Russell T Davies, he conceived elements of the Doctor Who episode "Empire of Death" decades before he wrote it?

    – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron: Alternatively, how about something like "... Russell T Davies claimed to have come up with the premise of the Doctor Who episode "Empire of Death" decades before he wrote it?Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    The problem with that, as theleekycauldron pointed out, is that Davies didn't really say anything about "the premise" in the reference; he just said there were elements—"stuff", in his words—that he'd been thinking about for decades. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    ALT0b works for me! hopefully, someone can give that hook a trim in prep, but it looks fine for now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Prejudice and Class

Alright, I've been trying to change just one word in this stupid article, it keeps getting reverted without an actual good reason. First someone reverted the whole article because of an abundance of words, then someone accuses me of "hiding" something by marking the edit down as "Minor", I find that low. So I put it in again not marking it down as such and I get reverted just because I was "Reverted".

Seems the higher rated class on Wikipedia has become predudicial about who can edit what in here, just like the Cult in Doctor Who fandom has become toxic, in their attempts to rewrite the history and continuity of the show to fit their world views and their perception of reality.

So I'm going to avoid Disney Doctor Who the same way I'll avoid political pages, and apparently get back to 80's and B-movies "Where I apparently Belong". Maxcardun (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't have been re-reverted, as the grounds of the original revert were for it being marked as minor when it (arguably) shouldn't have been. Honestly, I personally think it was fine to be classed as minor because it didn't change the meaning of the article as far as I'm concerned, but equally I don't think JustAnotherCompanion was wrong to revert it – it comes down to their own judgement, and I'm not going to question that; I can potentially see an argument for it not being minor. I do, however, think OlifanofmrTennant should not have reverted it again when you restored your change without it marked as minor, because you had corrected the issue that it had been reverted for. Unless they have an issue with changing "minion" to "servant", there was no reason to revert it (and if they do have an issue with it, they should make clear the reasoning). I'm sure this was just a mistake, however. As for the longer plot being replaced with a shorter version, this is simply to meet the 400 word restriction per MOS:TVPLOT. It doesn't mean you can't make appropriate changes, so long as it fits that word limit; this again was nothing personal.

I understand your frustration, but reversion and disagreement is just the nature of a collaborative article, particularly about a new topic. I and the other 2 editors have all had numerous edits reverted, and I certainly have disagreed with a reversion more than once. Assume good faith and engage constructively to reach consensus/compromise, and your contributions will be welcomed. Accusing editors of being in a "prejudiced higher class" without good cause doesn't help anyone. It isn't constructive and doesn't make anyone feel inclined to work with you on it. I hope you don't feel totally put off editing articles on the topic as your contribution is valuable. Irltoad (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found my edit summary 'low'. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything - I did note in the edit summary that the 'hiding' may have been unintentional, and for avoidance of doubt I'll state again here that I don't believe you deliberately hid the edit. I considered my decision carefully before reverting. I've considered it carefully again now, and I stand by it. I believe minor edits should be reserved for bot edits, typos, and reference fixing, etc. Edits which fix something about the page but don't visibly change anything. When article text is changed, I believe everyone should have the chance to see this.

I think I may also have been the editor who restored the plot to an earlier version (not the whole article). I'm happy to explain myself here if that helps. As noted above, there is a word length mandated for plot sections. After the episode had first been broadcast, I played a part in contributing to a too long plot (which is OK, most if not all plots become too long at first) before editing it down to a suitable length. Then various editors were adding in extra details here or there. At first, I think I reverted one or two. But then I decided to leave it for a bit (wary of accidentally breaching WP:3RR, or approaching WP:OWN territory). My intention was to let the editing die down and then work it back to to the word limit when it was stable. Before I got the chance to, another editor in good faith did their best job at making it shorter. It was still over 400 words, though, so I compared it to the earlier version to see if I could tweak it. I judged the work necessary to bring the amended summary in under 400 while appropriately covering the plot was greater than going back to the earlier version. I trusted that if other editors disagreed with me, or felt I had cut something essential out as a result, they would edit it further. As I recall the main issue I had was the amended version tried to explain too many scenes beat-by-beat instead of summarising them. I hope that it a satisfactory explanation of why the plot summary was restored to an earlier version.

Finally, I'd like to note that I don't think there is a "higher rated class" here on Wikipedia. If there is, I certainly wouldn't include myself in it. This account is barely months old! XD JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 22:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking on this review . FishLoveHam (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A really strong Doctor Who nomination overall.

Infobox and lede

• Remove a comma after "story".
• Add a comma after "in this episode".

Plot

• "on top of" → "atop" (less wordy).
• "He explains" → Who explains, Sutekh or the Doctor?
• "which" → "that".
• "visit 2046" → "visit the year 2046".
• Add commas surrounding "to make him stop".
• Add a comma after "compulsory".
• "death" → "deaths".
• "got" → "had".
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 85.1% in similarity, mainly from the plot summary. Per WP:Plagarism, I think you should cite the reference it was copied from.

I'm an editor who did a lot of work on the plot summary. I'm commenting on this GA review to say that I believe the copyvio is the other way around. Although I am unable to see the 85.1% similarity result on Earwing as I get a HTTP Error 429 when using it, I have put a random paragraph from the plot in Google and searched for it instead. If the result from my search (a site named Tragical History Tour) is the same site Earwig is finding, that site has clearly copied the plot from the Wikipedia article for their page. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Production

Development

• "says" → "said".
• "premise of the story" → "story's premise".
• Remove the comma after "original "aesthetic" of Sutekh".
• Remove the comma after "design provided by Davies".
• Add a comma after "commentary".
• Remove "actually" (redundant).
• "he had originally" → "he initially".

Filming

• Add a comma after "London".
• "With Bonnie Langford's Mel specifically noticing" remove "with" and "noticing" → "notices".
• Add a comma after "thus".
• "usage" → "use".
• "sixtieth anniversary" → "sixtieth-anniversary".
• "in order to" → "to".

Casting

• "which" → "that".

Broadcast and reception

Broadcast

• "and followed" → "and was followed".
• "its" → "it".
• "The first appearance of Sutekh" → "Sutekh's first appearance".
• Repetition of "broadcast" in the same sentence. Maybe change one to "aired".
• Add a colon after "previous episode".

Ratings

• "Griffin stated that it was likely that the episode was viewed by significantly more people" remove the second "that".  Done
• "most-profitable" → "most profitable"  Done

Critical reception

• I recommend altering the heading to "Critical response", but not a requirement.

References

• Ref 6 and 21 are the same.  Done
• CultBox is misspelled in ref 18.  Done
• Sources are archived.
• Ping when done. FishLoveHam (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  @FishLoveHam: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) Nice work.

I believe I've addressed all the comments in the Infobox and lede, plot, and production sections. I'll leave the rest for my co-nominators. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·