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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Eve (who played Angie in The Bells of St John, but we can't say for sure the same character will return) was named as the owner of the mislaid script back in November. Is that not enough to say she is part of the cast of this episode? U-Mos (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as I've explained this, when we are generalizing/summarizing critical reception, we cite sources that summarize/explain the reception, in this case a source stating that the episode has received mixed reviews. So we don't cherry-pick reviews and make our own assumptions/interpretations/synthesis. We let sources speak for themselves. (As an additional reminder: please make sure that your writing is free of spelling & grammatical errors and that you are not re-adding an already existing source before contributing to the articles.) ภץאคгöร20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-I'd choose a different word than "charges" since that may be confusing for some readers Done
-I'd add an overall view of what reviewers thought, then follow with Gaiman's statement, since it's a bit blunt right now.
Comment: There's no "overall view" yet if you are referring to "positive/mixed/negative reviews", as there's no source backing up what this view may be. See WP:SYNTH, such situations need to be considered when reviewing the good article nominees. ภץאคгöร19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyxaros I definitely agree that the article's Reception doesn't seem to have an easy "positive, mixed, negative" in this case. Admittedly, I wrote this before looking at the Reception, and forgot to remove this comment. In any case, I will state that I don't think this is an issue in most cases so long as the information is easily verifiable in the article. It's less easy here, so I concur that it's probably something that should be excluded in the case of Nightmare in Silver. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-I'd fuse the second, third, and fourth paragraphs together. Done
-"IGN's Mark Snow gave a positive review, though he felt that the episode was somewhat underwhelming but still worked as the return of the Cybermen" I'd make the "positive review" part the first sentence, and then reword the rest into a second sentence. Done
I concur with that other editor on the matter. One last thing, if it's not too much, but would you be willing to further reword the IGN sentence? The split I feel is fine but it reads rather clunkily. I'd reword the second sentence to something like "Despite feeling that the episode was underwhelming, Snow felt the episode worked well as a return for the Cybermen." Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Comment: There's no "overall view" yet if you are referring to "positive/mixed/negative reviews", as there's no source backing up what this view may be. See WP:SYNTH, such situations need to be considered when reviewing the good article nominees. ภץאคгöร 19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
