Talk:Sontaran/GA1: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was thinking about Sontarans all day (no, not the Roman Empire, Sontarans) and here I see it on GAN. I’m on it. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a vibe actually I’m gonna be very fr Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image

• The infobox image is super cool and fun, and the museum lighting is unusual, giving it a sense of depth and importance (Sontar-ha!) But, it must be admitted that the facial features are washed out due to the lighting. I brought the image into GIMP and removed the color, and immediately the face appeared. That would mean uploading a B&W version, but it has the advantage of revealing the entire face, including the features and bone structure. Something to think about?

• Excellent job on the proportion of lead size to body size. It’s great.
• The Sontarans have gone on to be recurring antagonists within the series.
  • And yet, you ignore Strax? Seems an oversight, no? Don’t you think the lead should be adjusted to account for our friend Strax?

• In-universe, they are a clone race, with Sontarans being a species bred for war at birth to fight a never-ending war against a species known as the Rutans.
  • How do you feel about cutting back on the redundancy of the word “war” and only using it once? Doesn’t matter how you do it, but I have one example: “In-universe, they are a clone race, with Sontarans bred to fight a never-ending war against a species known as the Rutans.”
• They first appeared in the 1973 serial The Time Warrior, where a member of the species uses time travel technology to try and return to his home planet.”
  • Can we eliminate the wordiness of “member of the species” to just “Sontaran”? Something like: “They first appeared in the 1973 serial The Time Warrior, where a Sontaran uses time travel technology to try and return to his home planet.” Or any other way you want to do it? Not a biggie if you want to keep it the way it is, but “member of the species” sounds so clinical and detached.
• A Sontaran named Strax serves as a recurring supporting character in the series as a member of the group known as the Paternoster Gang.
  • Since you used the word recurring in the previous sentence, I think it’s fine to just say “supporting character” here.

• The Sontarans were created by writer Robert Holmes. Holmes conceived the Sontarans after reading the 1832 war treatise On War.
  • I like the short sentences, but I think combining them works better here and cuts down on verbiage and gets down to business. For example: “Writer Robert Holmes created the Sontarans after reading On War (1832), a military treatise by Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz.” Of course, you can write this any way you want, this is just an example of my thought process. I like the more direct nature of this version.

• I still can’t figure out what this is supposed to mean: He was also inspired by the Vietnam War, particularly by the American troops who were deployed into a conflict between other countries

• The original quote is “In part, Holmes also drew upon the Vietnam War which had waged since 1955, conceiving the Sontarans like American forces deploying into the conflict between North and South Vietnam.” Tried to transliterate this as best as possible but it’s a bit unclear even in the original text. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I’m missing it, I don’t see any mention of their distinctive “Sontar-ha” war chant or phrase, which I believe was only incorporated into the character much later.

• Sontarans only have a single weak point: a “probic vent” on the back of their neck, through which they receive energy, with a single hit here dealing heavy damage to a Sontaran.
  • This sentence is slightly clunky. You could split it up like this for readability: “Sontarans have only a single weak point: a “probic vent” on the back of their neck, through which they receive energy. A single hit to this spot can cause major damage.” Or however you want to write it.

• The “Television” section reads like a jumbled list of trivia. There should be a way to give it more narrative continuity instead of its current form which is stilted and separate. This problem resolves itself if you try to find the common thread between all the appearances. I’m currently doing another review of Saru (Star Trek: Discovery), and if you look at the appearances section there, you can see how the editor ties everything together with a ribbon and a bow. They do this by combining the backstory with the appearances, but only partially chronological. The writer uses multiple levels to give the narrative depth. The first level is the initial backstory starting from the beginning, combined with specific details about the character that gives the reader an idea as to who Saru is as a character and what makes him tick. That’s what I’m asking about the Sontarans in this article. Who are they? You give us the detail of the appearance, but we don’t learn anything about them. Tell us based on those series and episodes. In the Saru article, a second level of narrative emerges, that of story highlights and the most important events related to the growth of the character, their standing in relation to the other characters on the show, and the larger story they are a part of in its entirety. What the writer is doing here is creating a coherent narrative by joining the story about the character with its appearances and then expanding it outwards to encompass the character’s relationship with others. That’s the missing element you don’t have. Instead, you’re just telling us “The Sontarans appear here, here, and here.” But you need to connect the dots between here and here. Why did they appear here and here? A good way to think about it is like this: what do we learn about the Sontarans between The Time Warrior, The Invasion of Time, and The Two Doctors? That’s your answer for that paragraph, and you can use it that tie the narrative together for that part. Do the same for the rest and the story of the Sontarans emerges and ties the section together. Read the Saru appearances section to get some more ideas.

• The reason it’s framed like this is because the Sontarans don’t have a continuous narrative. Each appearance is completely unrelated to each prior appearance, barring small references irrelevant to the episode plot. The only commonality they all have is it’s all for the benefit of the wider empire, but these appearances are never particularly linked to prior ones or even the wider empire (And if they are, it’s a small detail unmentioned by the sources I’ve used). None of the appearances actually really link into later ones in any meaningful way, nor does their species have any development or growth between appearances. Saru follows a linear timeline with an established character arc, the Sontarans don’t have that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand what you are saying, but I think you missed my point. To clarify, I’m saying that in spite of the literal narrative of the show, on Wikipedia, we create or impose a narrative on the text to differentiate it from a list of indiscriminate trivia. The easiest way to do this is using a narrative structure unique to a topic, for example, biographies, military conflicts, musicians, art works, engineering projects, etc. Each of these topics has a concomitant narrative structure. If I’m writing a biography, for example, there’s a natural expectation that I will have a linear structure from birth to death, even if we don’t have all the details or knowledge of the intervening years. To make any kind of narrative work, we often group shared characteristics. You can see how the Doctor Who wiki did this by grouping the Sontaran character under the discussion of alien biology, society, technology, armour, and history. This is just an example. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Second paragraph is a wall of text. Consider breaking it up into two paragraphs for readability.

• Understood. The reason it is classified as a “wall of text” is because it is approximately 242 words, which is 42 words over the 200 word paragraph limit of recommended readability. 25 years ago, for academic journal articles, the recommended, maximum size for paragraphs was about 150 words, but I suspect that has shrunk considerably due to the impact of social media on younger readers. It is worth it to consider that at no time in the last 25 years has 242 words been considered readable. More recently, people have recommended paragraph sizes below 100 words, but debate is still ongoing. I don’t think Wikipedia has any insight into this, but a recent discussion from last year came up with a simple rule of thumb: since 75% of our readers are on mobile, check your phone to gauge readability.[1] Checking this article on my phone shows it is much longer than any other paragraph on the page and diminishes readability. Also, it is generally recommended that paragraph sizes remain consistent. However, you are free to do what you wish and maintain the length at 242 words.

• and was additionally inspired by the Vietnam War, particularly in the form of the American troops who were deployed into a conflict between other countries

• Copyedited to remove the repetitive and redundant language.

• Please archive all of your sources so they don’t become dead links. Run IABot.[2]

Randomized spot check

• 5a: I think your page numbers are off? The chapter on the Sontarans is on pp. 61-68, 208-209, 243, and likely a few others I missed.
• 5b: See above.
• 5c: See above.
• 5d: See above.
• 5e: See above.

• 8: Check.
• 14a: As far as I can tell, this citation is incomplete and it isn’t clear if this material appears in the 2011 issue.

• It’s a good question. Do you own the pub or have you reviewed it? I ask because there aren’t any copies online to review, and the author and title don’t seem to refer to the actual article or specific author within. For example, Andrew Pixley is listed as the writer and Spilbury is the editor. So from what I can tell, the entire magazine is being cited, not a specific article within about an episode or page numbers. My guess, based on the link above, is there is at least 12 separate episode articles inside the magazine, likely authored by Pixley, and perhaps a general introduction. That’s why I had concerns. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 14b: See above.
• 17: Check.
• 26: Check.
• 32: Check.
• 33a: This is a duplicate cite of 5a-e, which means it has the same problem. There should only be one citation for the book, or multiple for the page numbers.

• 33b: See above.
• 37: This is a weird one, and is the second review this week where I’ve seen this exact same problem. There is no “comic relief” quote. It is a paraphrase so there’s no reason it should be quoted. So the source checks out, but the material shouldn’t be quoted.

• Looks good. Link is active.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   After a series of copyedits, I believe this criterion is met.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Looks good, but I do have minor concerns about the television subsection in appearances. However, after a copyedit, I believe my concerns no longer rise to the level of a concern but should be downgraded with caveats as I will explain in the closing comments.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Issues with spot-check addressed and handled.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Earwig report is clean. GPTZero reports the text is 99% human.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues detected.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All main aspects addressed.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Excellent work here.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Well done.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article is relatively stable.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are tagged appropriately with non-free rationales. See closing comments for concern about lead image.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Relevant. Captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article wasn’t in too bad a bad a shape when it was nominated, but I did identify two minor issues that the nominator should consider in the future: 1) As expressed in the feedback section, some minor image editing could vastly improve the depiction of the Sontaran face in the current lead infobox image. Since this is mostly a minor stylistic issue, it does not have any ultimate bearing on the result of the review as its current appearance in the article is good enough. 2) As previously expressed in the feedback section, I have raised a minor concern with the narrative continuity (or lack of such) in the Appearances > Television subsection. I’m convinced that returning to the sources could vastly improve this section despite the choppy history of the character. I don’t think any more needs to be said since I’ve covered this in some depth above. Thanks again for your work.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.