Dalek

I stumbled across this article, but found it extremely comprehensive and factual. I feel as if it deserves a little more attention - and since the Dalek has recently been re-born on the television series, there may be a new spark of interest.Joewithajay 13:17, 2005 May 1st (GMT)

• Man, that's really good. Support. Everyking 18:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nick 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A good Doctor Who article that perhaps spark more attention to the series and WikiProject Doctor Who in general. Ben Babcock 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Excellent, but not quite FA yet. The lead section is too short for an article of this size, and the article is insufficiently referenced. The introduction should at least mention the first appearance of the Daleks, with a date, and establish their notability. As for the references, two sources is a bit thin for an article of this size. If these really cover all the material in the article (which they certainly do not, as the most recent source is dated from 2003, while the article mentions episodes produced in 2005), then it should be made clear using footnotes which sections of the reference works were used for what parts of the article. As such, strong/dubiousb statements should be annotated, and the corresponding footnote should indicate the paragraph in the source confirming them ("[Dalek]Operators were often able to eavesdrop on private conversations between people who thought the casings were empty, but the top sections were too heavy to move from inside, which meant that the operators could be trapped in them if the stagehands forgot to let them out."). The "Merchandising" section is also somewhat weak compared to the wonderfully detailed "History" section. I feel it could be rewritten with more detail (name manufacturers of these toys, currently only one is mentionned, do more exhaustive research on the -rather enourmous- impact of the Daleks on video gaming -"A few computer games were made..." doesn't cut it for a FA). Finally, someone should copyedit the article. There are some minor mistakes/repetitions. As I said, however, the exquisitely exhaustive "History within the show" section redeems the article a thousand times. Phils 21:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now support this FAC. Phils 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the case of the 'Merchandising' section, I feel that mentioning more then one toy manufacturer is really quite unnecessary - it wouldn't serve much purpose in my opinion (not that more shouldn't be added at a later date, but I don't see it as grounds for an objection). Also, it mentions several games that have been based on the dareks, and even mentions a modification for another game which includes elements of it - this seems like more then enough? I agree the references could be improved, though. --Joewithajay 21:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • Let me quote the article A few computer games have featured the Daleks, notably the 1992 game "Dalek Attack". There are also other online games (not authorized by the BBC) that include them [...]. This clearly implies that there were more than one commercial computer titles featuring the Daleks; the unauthorized online games being another genre. Also, I only object article based on quality precedents set by previous FAs. I have faith that at some point someone might add more information to this article, but I'm objecting based on what I see now. Phils 05:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded it a bit, but am hesitant to mention any more games as it's bothering on trivia - the Daleks have not had as enormous an impact on video gaming as you mention. Certainly, aside from the smaller roles I cite in games whose titles most people would not even recognise or take note of (for the ZX Spectrum, Amiga, Atari), "Dalek Attack" is the only notable one with the as a central adversary. --khaosworks 07:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I admit I was a little picky there. What you have there now is perfect. My concern about the references still stands, though. The comments about the operators eavesdropping on conversations from other set members, as well as some other claims might be mistaken for jokes if they are not properly sourced. Same goes for the interviews about where Nation supposedly got the name for Dalek. (Dal-Lek). Phils 10:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already removed that eavesdropping comment, and the DAL-LEK story is well known and is mentioned in one of the secondary sources I list below. Next? :) --khaosworks 16:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • Next? I'll tell you what happens next: this article will be made a FA. Great work. Phils 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add a comment as to references: When this hit the FAC status, I knew that would be the main objection, so I tried to add the reference books I did have which I knew contained some of the information. Unfortunately a lot of this is fan lore passed down or scattered over magazine articles I can't really track down now. Someone does need to track down better in-print references, but sadly I am unable to provide them beyond what I have done. The more recent information - especially that in the History section which I take the rap for rewriting and expanding - comes straight from the television programme, though, so there's no print reference as such - do we put those in as well? I would welcome suggestions as to how to improve the other sections. --khaosworks 22:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. All of the images are fair use, though I appreciate that this article does relate mainly to a TV show. CheekyMonkey 21:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed some of the tags to be more specific - most promotional shots released for publicity purposes. --khaosworks 17:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I Support. CheekyMonkey 22:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the introduction should make some reference to the fact that the Daleks transcended Dr. Who somewhat and entered the national psyche. They are iconic in a way which no other sci-fi monsters are, at least none that I can think of. I think the intro should mention that "Dalek" is in the OED, maybe mention the John Birt thing too. At the moment the intro makes the Daleks sound like just another sci-fi alien, which devalues them somewhat. Rje 00:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Done. --khaosworks 17:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I Support this article's candidacy now, good work Khaoswerks. Although I would suggest looking at Image:Dalekattack.jpg, I think it is too dark and not very clear. Although this might be my bad eyesight. Rje 18:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I've upped the brightness and contrast levels a bit to make it look brighter, but can't push it much further without making it looked washed out. Hopefully this will look better. --khaosworks 18:37, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• That's much clearer, thanks very much. Rje 20:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• More Dalek history and trivia than I knew existed. Rather well prefaced, sectioned, and covered. Needs some work (see below) but certainly qualifies as good prose; good cross-referencing and cultural context; comprehensive. Tentative support. +sj + 08:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggested improvements:

  1. There is overwikification (it's not necessary or even good style to link every year, certainly not the 2d and 3rd time it appears; don't link terms like "Earth" more than once; do you need to link "stairs" and "dictionary"? If you're going to link phrases like "The Mirror", get the link write (make sure it's not to a dab page) : The_Daily_Mirror)
  2. sectioning could use some work ("costume details" shoudl be a subsection of some top-level section).
  3. "The word "Dalek" has entered the English dictionary," -- really? this should be thoroughly sourced. Which dictionary? What is the full definition?
  4. Clarify in the introduction the fact that the Dalek history is self-contradictory. Try to describe what they are more cleanly in the first paragraph.

  I have removed some of the excess links from the article. I also named the dictionary in which "Dalek" appears, the OED is probably the pre-eminent dictionary of British English. Unfortunatly I could not source this, I only have access to the online edition which most people cannot access. Rje 20:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

  I've put "costume details" under "physical characteristics. In "External links", I placed a link to http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1647, which provides the OED definition. As for the first paragraph, I attempted a rewrite. As for Dalek history, I think that the discussion about self-contradiction is adequately provided for at the preface to the history section and doesn't need to be prominently displayed in an opening paragraph. In any case, there's a lot of fan debate about whether it is contradictory, depending on what chronological sequence you place the stories in. --khaosworks 20:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

  The full definition is "A type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who’, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively. Also attrib. and Comb.". The fact that the word is used allusively is the reason for its inclusion, a minor point but one worth making. Rje 00:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)