Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 11, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance). Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that according to writer Russell T Davies, he conceived elements of the Doctor Who episode "Empire of Death" decades before he wrote it? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

A really strong Doctor Who nomination overall.

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

• "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)[reply]

• "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".

• 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".

• "which" → "that".

• "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".

• "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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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:
· · ·