Talk:The Well (Doctor Who)

GA review

@TheDoctorWho and any other editors who may have worked on this article, I've just completed the requested copy edit of the article made to the Guild of Copy Editors and I'll be happy to engage in discussion about what I did and why. As with your other articles, Doctor, I found it basically a good presentation, but this time in need of more tightening up than in your other two articles that I edited.

— There were quite a few places I felt were in need of clarification. Sometimes I could quickly see a remedy, like slight rewording; other times I placed "clarification needed" templates with specific questions or comments.

— I also repositioned several sentences—almost always within the same paragraph—for better flow and clarity.

— And as in "The Robot Revolution," I bulletized the critics' comments toward the end of the article for what I believe makes for ease of reading ... but it's up to you whether you want to go back to placing all similar reviews in a solid paragraph block.

— I hope you'll look closely at the edited article to make sure I didn't veer off from what you intended to say.

@Augnablik: on the parts you asked for clarification on:

• Could you clarify how to improve flow in the Plot section? I'm a bit confused on how you want it to be improved. I've tried clarifying the Shaya bit and removed the tag there, though let me know if that needs further elaboration; I tried to keep it as simple as possible to keep this within the word limit.
• They do not clarify at all in the source why they couldn't treat it with an appropriate level of respect; they just said that they were not able to. We can't exactly invent a reason why they couldn't, so the wording is as it is to state this fact as objectively as possible.
• I'm very confused on your comment about sequel vs direct sequel; could you clarify what you mean here?
• Davies does not specify why he changed it to The Well in any source; again, we cannot invent a reason why he did, so to report it as objectively as possible, we did not state anything additionally to the information we have.
• I've undone the Reception edits; typically, Reception should not be listed as bullet points, and instead as prose. I've kept the touch-ups to flow and spelling, but reverted the bullet formatting, as well as the ratings box pointer; Reception sections do not point readers to the box.

I've removed the two clarification neededs in production I mentioned above that physically cannot be elaborated on, though I've left the one on the sequel bit until that is discussed. I've left the one on the paragraphs, but removed the one about Shaya's command since I've clarified that one. Let me know what else should be done on the remaining issues. I'm admittedly not too familiar with how the Guild functions, so forgive me if I'm out of line with certain things. Thank you for your help with the article so far! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Pokelego999 ... thanks for such a quick response. I had to smile when I saw down near the close of your message that you’d said you were “admittedly not too familiar with how the Guild functions”, because I’m still fairly new to the Guild myself, though I’ve done copy editing for many years. All my questions and comments were done as a seasoned copy editor, not as a Guild member.

Q 1

— I didn’t ask for improvement in flow, Pokelego999. I wonder if perhaps you misread what I did say was needed, which was clarification.

— You clarified “the Shaya bit”, thanks. What you added perfectly explains what hadn’t been clear.

— What word limit are you referring to?

Q2

About the sentence, “After the writers felt the script was not treating the Orishas with an appropriate level of respect, however, the episode was converted into a sequel to ‘Midnight’"...

— I didn’t ask why the writers “couldn’t treat it [it being the Orishas, I think you mean] with respect”. What I was focussing on is that as the sentence is written, it’s saying something that doesn’t logically follow. Because writers are the very people who create a script, how could they be unhappy that it wasn’t treating the Orishas with enough respect?

— Or is there more in the production of the episode than what’s said here? Like, were some changes made in the script by others that differed from what the original writers intended?

Q3

About “my comment about sequel vs direct sequel”...

— I myself was very confused about this, Pokelego999. In the last paragraph of the Development sub-section, sentence 2, it says that the episode was converted into a sequel to ‘Midnight’”. Then in sentence 3, it says that Davies “decided to rework the episode as a direct sequel”. That’s two different ways of referring to sequels. I’m not very familiar with TV and film work, so I thought maybe sequel might mean something a little different from direct sequel.

— That said, please could you just make whatever changes in wording you can think of that would help readers understand what’s going on here?

Q4

About Davies not specifying his change of the title from “The Thirteen” to “The Well” ...

— I brought this up because after reading the last sentence of the same paragraph as above, some readers will wonder the same thing (why the change was made). Of course if you don’t know the answer, you can’t “invent a reason”. I think if you go back to whatever I said, you’ll see that you were not being asked to do so.

— Because some readers of the article might wonder why the change was made, as I did, it would be very helpful to find out. I did a quick AI search online and found this: "The title of Doctor Who's fifteenth series, third episode was changed from 'The Thirteen’ to 'The Well' due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on television production. Due to the pandemic, the series was reduced to eight episodes, with the episode "The Well" originally being part of a planned 13-episode season. The shift in production led to a change in the title to align with the shortened season and storyline," Wikipedia says.

The Wikipedia link leads to an article titled “Doctor Who series 13,” and the connection with the pandemic must be somewhere further down in the article. That's as far as I'd like to go with further sleuthing.

Q5

About undoing the bulletizing in the Reception sub-section ...

— If you’re following some sort of formatting for articles about TV shows, fine; then you’re aware of something I would like to know more about. Although I became aware that the layout of “The Well” looked almost exactly the layout of “The Robot Revolution”, which I also copy edited, I thought that was simply the choice of the author of both articles.

— Bulletizing long lists is frequently done in articles, but again, if there is a particular format being followed by authors of articles about TV shows, then sure, that should be followed.

— The Wikipedia editor who goes by TheDoctorWhowill probably unbulletize the bullets I placed in the same section of “The Robot Revolution” article. Augnablik (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik

Q1: Television episodes have a word limit of around 400 per MOS:TVPLOT, which states that "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." Regardless, I am still confused what more clarity you want in those sections, since the way you framed your concerns came across to me as more of a flow issue than a clarity issue.

Q2: Thank you for the clarity. I've reworded the Orishas bit per your statement; hopefully this should suffice. As stated above, nothing more is known about development. This article uses all available resources for it.

Q3: A sequel is obviously a work that follows another, but a direct sequel is something that is directly following the events of a particular piece of media. For instance, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is a film that is a sequel to Knives Out because it is the second film in the series and focuses on a character from the film, but it is not a direct sequel since it does not directly follow the events of Knives Out. Hopefully that makes sense. In this context I don't think it's a huge issue since both apply to The Well, but I've reworded to put emphasis on direct sequel.

Q4: What are you asking for us to do with "The Thirteen" then? Yes, readers will wonder, but it's not like we have an answer, and the original source specifies no further information beyond the fact the name was changed during development. I don't quite understand what you want us to change here for reader clarity.

I would not wholeheartedly trust AI, especially since half of what it says is entirely false. Series 15 was not developed during COVID, and was instead filmed and produced in 2023-2024, long after the pandemic ended. Series 13 was the season that was produced during COVID, and is entirely unrelated to the production of Series 15; a simple CTRL+F search would have given you the result that Series 15 is not mentioned once in Series 13's article. The title being changed and the episode count being shortened was also something that Series 13 did, though 13 had 6 episodes, not 8; as of right now, I don't believe there is a confirmed reason for the lower amount of episodes for Series 15, but it has nothing to do with the pandemic as far as we know. AI is definitely creating some hodge-podged original research there, taken from across multiple series articles, and I'd suggest doing your own research in the future to avoid such blatant misinformation.

Q5: I wrote the Reception for both these articles, and bar some stylistic tendencies, Reception sections for GAs and FAs tend to use prose over bullet points. I'm not sure on if there's an exact policy, as I'm admittedly more familiar with video game reception sections, but TheDoctorWho can probably speak more on that. Regardless, this tends to be what is used more, and indeed is used on all other Doctor Who episode articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll pick up on all the questions on our plate but let me begin with Q4 to get started, as it's more involved than the others. If there is truly "no answer ", then of course nothing can be guessed at and used. But with a little detective work, you may indeed find something usable. That's what I was trying to nudge you toward. That's the difference between authors who just get a job done and those who go all out for their readers—often with little extra work and "pain".

Using AI as a starting point for detective work is perfectly fine if you understand it's just that: a starting point (exactly as Wikipedia itself is considered in academic circles!). My search ended up at a Wikipedia article where, if you go there, you'll find the answer I was hoping for. I left it up to you to go find it for yourself so you would have that experience. Augnablik (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Prefacing this by saying that this is just me giving some advice for the future, since you yourself have said you're a bit new to this whole thing. I only seek to give some advice, so if I come off as harsh, then that is a fault on my part, and I apologize, as that is not my intention.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith: I would suggest not assuming someone is an author "who just get[s] a job done" immediately, especially when they're a major contributor to a Good Article, as in most cases where I myself have reviewed others' content, they tend to have done their research. If you believe they've missed something, then say something like "I found a source you hadn't used in the article, could you perhaps use this?" or, if unfamiliar with the topic area and wanting to clarify, something like "Is there a reason why X isn't discussed?" instead of assuming that someone has neglected to research the area at all, since chances are they likely have a reason for why X isn't discussed, or, if they've missed a source, they've just made a mistake that can be rectified through some discussion. Intentionally assuming others aren't doing their job is not a good way of handling a conversation, especially when it's for constructive criticism.

I will also note your "starting point" was literally just the AI result instead of anything actually in the article; AI frequently makes up info, and instead of verifying if that starting point was even accurate, you just threw it up for suggestion. If this was in fact someone who wasn't informed, that would be a waste of reviewer time as they have to review and fact check what is for all intents and purposes a red herring. While I was able to debunk it more easily due to subject area familiarity, it could easily have been problematic for newer or more inexperienced editors, especially in unfamiliar topic areas. Your starting point idea isn't bad by any means, but you yourself need to put in the due diligence to make sure it's factually accurate, especially if it's going to involve an AI starting point. I'm aware you already had the discussion with Alex below and that you won't use it for these kinds of reviews in the future, but be wary regardless if you yourself plan on using it as a starting point.

Hopefully this is helpful; let me know if I can clarify anything. If I'm overstepping my boundaries, or come off harsher than I intend, than I apologize. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Only last night I came to notice that I never replied to this message,@Pokelego999.😗

About "assume good faith": when I made the comment you're referring to, I can honestly say I assumed no other sort of faith on your part at all. What I was trying to convey was the desirability of going an extra mile for readers if we can anticipate they might have a question or that there might be confusion about something in our writing—like in this case, the reason the film title change was made.

I wrote that because I could see that I didn't seem to be getting across what I believed was a valid concern: that rather than just leaving the sentence alone, at least some search effort should be made to try to find the reason. If one couldn't be found, I added, of course then time to move on.

It was only for what I thought would be going an extra mile for you that I took the extra time to do a quick search myself for the reason for the title change, and share what I found, pointing you to one place where mention of it was made—in another Wikipedia article. That, I hoped, would happily point up the value of sometimes going on the trail of missing information.

As for using AI, I hope what I've written further down in the thread about my thoughts on that will suffice.

I'm always sorry to find that something I might have said or done has caused ruffled feathers or more, so apologies heading your way, Pokelego999. But I also hope this peek behind the scenes on my side will make your day a little brighter. Happy to have shared work on "The Well" together with you. Augnablik (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Thank you so much for the help with the article! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with the comment above from Pokelego about the unreliability of AI and am extremely surprised to find it being used with such confidence on Wikipedia. WP:LLM goes into this in more detail, but AI is known for fabricating material it does not understand. I also agree with the fact that half of the AI-provided sentence makes zero sense and has no basis. This is why all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles, but that does not seem to have happened here. See here: Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries, in a non-transparent way, is strongly discouraged. I'm very concerned on how many incidents like this may have occurred, and would be interested in seeing this taken to some form of review. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Alex Augnablik (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alex_21, if you look back carefully at what I wrote for Pokelego999, you'll see I said that AI can serve as a starting point toward finding something. At this point in its development, yes, we must use it judiciously. I would never cite it as a reference. The three of us are on the same page about that. I pointed out to Pokelego999 that it led to another Wikipedia article where the information to a question we were discussing could be found. The source of that information (not the Wikipedia article itself) could of course then be cited.

Augnablik (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

In hindsight, I wish I'd simply framed my reply to Pokelego999 as encouragement to do a little further searching for information that would help readers understand what's said in an article more … especially when—as I pointed out—some readers of the sentence he and I were discussing would definitely have a question about what they'd read.

Lesson learned: I'll not mention AI next time in discussing an issue where the focus is simply on the need to try to make everything as clear as possible for readers. Probably I did so this time because of my own recent discovery of ways AI can be very helpful for both editors and writers, if the limits as well as legitimate uses for it are understood. Augnablik (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Before I go back to the other recent questions you had for me, @Pokelego999, which often are about clarity, I realized that something I said in my previous message to you could probably use a little more clarity too. It was when I said, "All my questions and comments were done as a seasoned copy editor, not as a Guild member" in response to your comment, "Let me know what else should be done on the remaining issues. I'm admittedly not too familiar with how the Guild functions, so forgive me if I'm out of line with certain things." What I meant by my reply was that whether or not I ever joined the Guild of Copy Editors had no bearing on what I did in the copy editing itself, because the only differences in a copy edit for the Guild and any other copy edit is various procedures we're asked to follow—such as opening up discussion on the article's Talk page for any editors who might want to ask us questions or make comments, as you and I are doing.

Okay, on to your questions. Again I'll need to take one at a time because there's so much to cover.

Q1: You said, "I am still confused what more clarity you want in those sections, since the way you framed your concerns came across to me as more of a flow issue than a clarity issue." I think in this question you're mainly asking about the Plot section.

I've worked on clarifying this section further, using capital letters to show what I'm suggesting based on what I think may be what you said in an earlier incarnation of the article. Below that are a few questions of my own to you.

Please see what you think and feel free to suggest otherwise.

__________________________________________

Still unable to return to Earth, the Doctor and Belinda find themselves 400,000 years in the future among a group of troopers, led by Shaya, who are visiting a planet to investigate loss of contact with its mining colony. They discover that EVERYONE HAS been murdered except for Aliss, a deaf cook, WHO claims the miners went mad and killed each other. ANOTHER DISCOVERY IS that every mirror has been broken.

<>Moved the next line down from par. 1 to par. 2, where it seems more connected.<>

Belinda learns that Aliss and the troopers have no knowledge of Earth or humanity. The Doctor realises he had visited the planet, then known as Midnight, 400,000 years earlier and encountered the same Midnight Entity. Belinda and two of the troopers say they think they see something behind Aliss, AT WHICH one OF THE TROOPERS moves behind the cook TO CHECK AND is THEREUPON thrown across the room to her death. AT THIS, Belinda theorises that the Entity is concealed behind Aliss and that anyone who moves behind her is killed. Aliss says the Entity will transfer to anyone who kills her.

Trooper Cassio, frustrated by Shaya's lack of action in getting rid of the Entity, relieves her of command. As he attempts to bring the Entity out into the open, HOWEVER, multiple troopers are killed BECAUSE when they go behind Aliss. Shaya regains control by asking Aliss to turn around, A MOVE THAT THUS KILLS Cassio.

The Doctor attempts to communicate with the Entity and the two appear to acknowledge each other. EVENTUALLY, the Doctor realises that the Entity whispers to its host, and that IT IS because Aliss cannot hear THAT she survives. Theorising that the Entity is afraid of its own reflection, the Doctor causes a leak of refined mercury, which creates a liquid mirror and frees Aliss.

— What is it that makes the Doctor theorise that the Entity is afraid of its own reflection?

— How does the Doctor come across the mercury? Does he look around and suddenly notice a source of it, or is he or someone else carrying mercury? What exactly is the mercury in that the Doctor causes a leak in?

— By the way, I hope none of the characters are shown in the programme to have been touched by the mercury, because it’s very dangerous to health. If any of the characters were in fact touched, this is worth a comment. Augnablik (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've neglected to make most of these changes, as they go beyond the 400 word limit we have to adhere to for the Plot section. I've just trimmed the plot section again, and I've tried to make things clear while keeping us below the 400 word limit, but there's not much more wiggle room. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As for your other questions:

-The mirrors being broken is the cause. I was able to cut some info that wasn't needed on a second go-through to make that fit in the plot section. There may be some wiggle room for some additional edits now that I've cut that part, but I'm not sure many of the above changes are needed given they're largely just using more words than necessary to convey the same meaning. Let me know on this.

-The mercury was in the pipes around the base. It was what they were mining in the first place. I've made an alteration for that.

-None of them are touched by mercury, so this is irrelevant to the episode, and even if they were, unless the episode makes that a plot point, it is not relevant to the plot summary section. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

On to both your next two questions, as there's not that much involved. In fact, I think it's only par. 3 of the Development sub-section of Production.

Q2: I've reworded the Orishas bit per your statement; hopefully this should suffice. As stated above, nothing more is known about development. This article uses all available resources for it.

Q3: A sequel is obviously a work that follows another, but a direct sequel is something that is directly following the events of a particular piece of media. For instance, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is a film that is a sequel to Knives Out because it is the second film in the series and focuses on a character from the film, but it is not a direct sequel since it does not directly follow the events of Knives Out. Hopefully that makes sense. In this context I don't think it's a huge issue since both apply to The Well, but I've reworded to put emphasis on direct sequel.

What you did is definitely clearer. I went ahead and published a few additional modifications based on yours. I have just one remaining question for you, and then I think the paragraph will be fine. You now have, "After the writers felt they could not depict the Orishas with an appropriate level of respect ..." and because this seems to be quite a change that I wouldn't have anticipated from what was there earlier, I'm wondering if you know this (what's in your new phrase) as a fact.

Since we've already addressed Qs 4 and 5, @Pokelego999, I think that does it as far as me answering your existing questions. I should mention that I did some work on par. 1 of the Casting sub-section, right below Development, that I was pretty sure you'd have no issues with, so please read that just to make sure. Augnablik (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Your modifications look good. I've largely reworded the Orishas statement to carry the same meaning as the original while being more concise. The new edits to the sentence would have been greatly repetitive with the subsequent sentence, so I merged them, hence the big change. It should largely be the same thing. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We're getting there! Again, my reply to your comments about Q1 will be best tackled separately from the rest to make scrolling easier for you.

Q1:

Plot

Par. 1:

The last line: ANOTHER DISCOVERY IS that every mirror has been broken is needed—or else something similar—rather than “They discover that ...” Rationale: to avoid making the dead miners seem to be the people to whom “they” refers.

Suggested changes elsewhere, plus rationales:

Par. 2:

"One of the troopers moves behind Aliss to check if there is something THERE, resulting in the trooper's death." Rationale: this avoids redundant wording in the sentence.

“Belinda theorises that the Entity is concealed behind Aliss and that anyone who moves behind HER is killed”. Rationale: that is the reality.

“Shaya GETS Cassio KILLED by having Aliss turn her back on him.” Rationale: Shaya doesn’t kill Cassio; she sets up his death.

Par. 3:

Remembering the broken mirrors, he theorises that the Entity is afraid of its own reflection; SO HE has Shaya shoot the BASE’S pipes containing THE MINED liquid mercury TO CREATE a liquid mirror AND THUS FREE Aliss.

—Rationale for the changes: clarity.

—Although your mention of the mercury as having been mined makes it much clearer why the Doctor had Shaya shoot the pipes, one small detail remains to be clarified: how he’d have known the pipes contain mercury.

“To free her, Shaya shoots Belinda in such a way that SHE can later be revived.” Rationale: this avoids redundant use of Belinda’s name in the same sentence.

Par. 4:

“On a SPACESHIP ORBITING the planet, Mo reports the events of the expedition to Mrs. Flood, who is pleased that the Doctor is using a specific device to try to return to Earth.”

—Rationale: this tightens up the wording a little.

—Further comment: Mo and Mrs. Flood appear out of nowhere in the Plot delineation, thus making for a disjointed narrative. Something needs to be said to introduce them, even if it means tightening the section up still further. I think the obvious place is the phrase after mention of Mrs. Flood and/or perhaps “who sacrifices herself to allow the others to escape,” the last line of par. 3.

______________________

—My comment about hoping none of the characters actually came into contact with the mercuryon the set was not made to add information to the Plot section but Production, where it would have been a detail of interest because the actors would have had serious personal medical problems. Augnablik (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Made most of the changes. A few notes:

-In the episode, it is specified that being behind the Entity is the inciting factor of being attacked. The Entity is always "behind" Aliss, even when she turns around, and being actually behind the Entity is the reason for being attacked. It's really confusing but it's how it's explained in the episode.

-The Doctor knows there's mercury there because the base mined mercury; I believe this can be safely inferred from the fact it says "mined mercury", and there's no real room to clarify this with a whole sentence earlier on.

-Belinda's name is specified twice to avoid confusion in case a reader may assume the text is discussing Shaya.

-I believe the hyperlink is adequate to explain who Mrs. Flood is, as her identity is specified at the respective article. The Mrs. Flood thing is also a series-wide link, which typically is not elaborated too heavily in the plot section.

-The mercury is not real mercury (At least, to my knowledge), and if it caused complications, this would be discussed in the article. I believe it'd be more concerning if a television production in this day and age actually used liquid mercury. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Reply to yours of yesterday.

Par. 1:

In sentence #1 (new edit suggestions): “who are visiting a planet to INVESTIGATE LOSS of contact [this is more normal wording] with its MERCURY [rationale below] mining colony.”

[MERCURY really needs to be added  here because in par. 4, the Doctor has Shaya shoot the pipes because he presumably knows that there’s mercury inside them that had been mined in the colony. This addition would finally make it clear that it was mercury that was mined.

Par. 2:

"One of the troopers moves behind Aliss to check SOMETHING IS there [to avoid redundancy I hadn’t noticed before], resulting in the trooper's death."

“Belinda theorises that the Entity is concealed behind Aliss and that anyone who moves behind IT ["the Entity" would be too repetitive a term in the same sentence] is killed.”

[By the way, I think it’s now perfectly clear about the danger being to go behind the Entity and not Aliss. I certainly didn’t understand that earlier.]

Par. 3:

“Remembering the broken mirrors, he theorises that the Entity is afraid of its own reflection AND SO HE [this more clearly shows the connection between the Doctor’s remembering the Entity’s fear of his own reflection and his command to Shaya—and use of “he” also sounds more natural than twice saying “the Doctor” in such a short space] has Shaya shoot the pipes containing the base’s liquid mercury, creating a liquid mirror and freeing Aliss.”

“To free her, Shaya shoots Belinda in such a way that SHE  [it’s perfectly clear that Belinda is the one referred to by the pronoun SHE, not Shaya’s, because Belinda’s name is the one that comes immediately before] can later be revived.”

[There are many things to discuss about the following sentence, so I’ll list them below, leaving edits #3 onward alone before we discuss.]

“On spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs. Flood, who is pleased that the Doctor is using a specific device to try to return to Earth.”

1. As I'm sure you'd agree the article A is needed before spaceship, I went ahead and changed it.

2. Because I just discovered that British format doesn’t use a full stop/period with honorifics, I’ve removed it here from Mrs Flood and the other two times her name also appears in the article.

________________________

3.  I strongly advise removing  “who is pleased that the Doctor is using a specific device to try to return to Earth” because it doesn't seem needed as well as what the vague “specific device“ is.

4. As replacement text for that phrase, I’ll make a suggestion in #5 below.

5. First, we need to talk about the citation link around Mrs Flood. If readers go to the Wikipedia article it leads to, some will likely be confused by the title of the article: “The Rani.”

—Normally a Wiki link would be titled with the same word(s) as appears in the other article. Although readers familiar with the series might recall that Mrs Flood is the Rani, others—certainly ones like me with no familiarity—would be bewildered by coming to an article titled so differently. othing appears about Mrs Flood for quite a while.

—It would be okay to link from Mrs Flood" in “The Well” to “The Rani” if there were a dedicated section about Mrs Flood there ... because in that case, there’d be a way to link directly to it. But there is no such section in “The Rani.”

What I'd suggest as the logical thing to do here is to move part of the current descriptive phrase about Mrs Flood from the Casting subsection of the Production section to replace the text I suggested above could be removed from the same sentence. The final version of the sentence, then, would then end up like this:

“On a spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs Flood, an enigmatic recurring character in the series who bi-generates into a new incarnation as the Rani.”

IMPORTANT: Current reference #20 would need to be kept with this move. Augnablik (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I just realized that in the last paragraph of the lead, although I thought I'd brought this up in a previous reply, the TARDIS is not described as a time-travel machine, or else that Belinda and the Doctor are time-travelling. For readers unfamiliar with the series, this will not be clear ... and not everyone follows every link in an article, especially an article with lots of them. Augnablik (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Onward.

Q2 / Q3

In the Development sub-section of the Production section

"The writers, HOWEVER, EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO PORTRAY the Orishas with appropriate REVERENCE AND RESPECT, THE episode was converted into a direct sequel to "Midnight"..." Rationale: after looking a little more into this scriptwriting issue, I thought this slight change in wording would convey it just a little better, although the current wording is not wrong. Augnablik (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not changing to this; the original source does not specify the writers "expressed concern", as it implies they were expressing it to someone when that was not the case. This was purely a decision on the part of the writers. Not including reverence either since it means basically the same thing as respect in this case, except it sounds more opinionated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Augnablik (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL CATCHES

Lead

Par. 2, last sentence: “Filming occurred at Pant-y-Ffynnon Quarry in Bridgend in February 2024” ... please note that later on in the article, the quarry is referred to only as Pant Quarry. Hopefully, that is more correct and you can simply remove the additional words here.

Filming and music sub-section of Production section

Par. 1, sentence 1: I think “on 29 January 2024” should be removed, as a date for something like a boot camp doesn't seem needed.

Par. 2: “Although each costume was specially made for each ACTOR, THE space suits were challenging to put on, with Sethu recalling that her costume required three people to attach and de-attach it. Rationale: but is extraneous here.

Par. 4:” Wires were similarly used for moments WHEN the Entity threw people into the air.” Rationale: that’s the required word here. Augnablik (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

-It's useful for the timeline in knowing when the actors did preparation in comparison to when they started filming, otherwise it would be confusing when this event occurred in comparison to the filming.

-Did the others. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t find that you addressed my comment about this “additional catch” in the lead:

Par. 2:

“Filming occurred at Pant-y-Ffynnon Quarry in Bridgend in February 2024” ... please note that later on in the article, the quarry is referred to only as Pant Quarry. Hopefully, that is more correct and you can simply remove the additional words here. Augnablik (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I referred to all by the full name since it's referred to that way in its main article and is more consistent. Words are not a worry for production sections so we don't need to worry about shorthands. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Words may not be a worry for Production sections, but good copy editing involves ensuring consistency of format throughout an article. And if an acronym is used on the second occurrence of a term, then that should be introduced right after the first occurrence so readers are aware of it, then continued throughout. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik all of the uses are using one form of the name. It is entirely consistent. It may be the longer one, but there's no shorthands to be confused with now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the fixes. Augnablik (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999, some of the issues I’d brought up about the few remaining things still remain. At this point in the interest of time, so I can add the GOCE completed copy edit template to the article, I’m going to go ahead and make the fixes I think will work best, and if you strongly disagree, let’s talk. We can still edit.

[1] “Belinda and the Doctor depart in the TARDIS.“ I made this comment about this sentence:

“I just realized that in the last paragraph of the lead, the TARDIS is not described as a time-travel machine, or else that Belinda and the Doctor are time-travelling. For readers unfamiliar with the series, this will not be clear and not everyone follows every link in an article, especially an article with lots of links.”

Although you left this alone, I believe the need is valid for something to clarify what the TARDIS is. So this is the fix I’m making:

Belinda and the Doctor depart in the TARDIS, a time-travel spacecraft that occasionally appears in the series.

[2]

2a- “On a spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs Flood, who is pleased that the Doctor is using a specific device, the Vindicator, to try to return to Earth.”

There are two issues in this sentence. Let’s go one at a time:

______________________________

“On a spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs Flood,”

Although I mentioned that I thought Mrs Flood should be identified for who she actually is, you said: “I believe the hyperlink is adequate to explain who Mrs. Flood is, as her identity is specified at the respective article. The Mrs. Flood thing is also a series-wide link, which typically is not elaborated too heavily in the plot section.”

I think we can surely compromise by using this simple statement I came across about Mrs Flood, and so this is the fix I’m making:

On a spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs Flood, an enigmatic recurring character in the series,

______________________________

2b- “... who is pleased that the Doctor is using a specific device, the Vindicator, to try to return to Earth.”

Your addition of the Vindicator as the specific device still won’t clarify what it is. Not all readers are going to follow every link, and in this case, the citation itself is problematic because the title of the article to which the link leads is “The Interstellar Song Contest” and to find any reference to the Vindicator, readers would have to scroll down a way, not knowing where they’ll find mention of it (if at all).

So here again, I think we can compromise. This is how the entire sentence now looks. I think it works perfectly because of your clarification of who Mo is along with what I’ve done:

On a spaceship orbiting the planet, one of the soldiers, Mo, reports the events of the expedition to Mrs Flood, an enigmatic recurring character in the series.
Augnablik (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)