Talk:Church of the Papal Mainframe/GA1

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crystal Drawers (talk · contribs) 17:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to try my hand at the Good Article review process, and so here I am! Expect comments by Friday, please ping me if I have not delivered by then. Here’s to hoping you pass! Crystal Drawers (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I have no knowledge of anything in Doctor Who, so I apologize if there are any times where I ask what something is when it may be obvious Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I have some time on my hands so let me get through the lead real quick

Article review

Lead:

1. Consider changing "...in the 2010 episodes..." to "...in the series five episodes..." (this is merely personal preference, feel free to ignore)

• I prefer to use air years so as to avoid confusion, as Doctor Who has had so many seasons with similar numbering schemes that trying to introduce them without elaboration can be confusing. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I get that, no problem Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

2. "In universe the Church..." - change to "In universe, the Church..."

3. There are two uses of "utilise" very close to each other, could you replace one?

• Did both this and 2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

4. Why is there a source for "Created by...", is there a reason this isn’t mentioned in the article (minus the infobox)? I’d add it somewhere near the beginning

• There isn't really a lot of development info on the Church in particular; what little dev info I can find is entirely about the design and concept for the Silents, which is covered in a different article. There's not much room to squeeze it in anywhere else so I figured it was best to cover it in the lead, given it's a small tidbit and would distract from the in-universe discussion in the Appearances section otherwise. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m still a bit unsure about only having that info in the lead, but I’ll accept it as it is for now and maybe try to come up a solution myself later on. Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

5. "The Silence's role in relation to the Church has also been analysed" - analyzed in what way? In other words, could you elaborate what context it was analyzed in?

• Multiple critics have multiple opinions, so it I can't generalize it without it being OR or going into extensive detail. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "The Silence's role in relation to the Church has also been analysed in the context of morality and apocalyptic doomsday groups"? Those are the only two I could find in the analysis section about the silence, I think those two don’t clutter it up that much and I don’t see it as OR more than just summarizing the points Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Only one source discusses each of those points. It seems UNDUE to put individual opinions in the lead like this. I've tried rewording it in the lead to make it tie a bit better into the Church points, though idk how helpful that is. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, that’s fine then Crystal Drawers (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

So far, so good. I will go through the next few sections in the coming days :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I have quite a lot of time on my hands today, so I continued the review. The only section I still need to look over is Reception and analysis (which I think will probably get more suggestions than any other section). Very good job, just a few copy-edit concerns. Looks like the article might even pass GA tomorrow at this rate! Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Television appearances:

1. "completely changing the Doctor's appearance" - change to "completely changing their appearance", as I’m worried about the repetition of the word "Doctor"

Didn't notice any other issues with this section

Background and characteristics:

1. "acts akin to a "security hub" despite being a religious order, seeking" - change to "acts akin to a "security hub", despite being a religious order, seeking" I usually put a comma before and after a despite sentence, but this is more so personal preference

2. "resulting in "memory-proof confessors"" - you can probably put "memory-proof confessors" into your own words. There are a lot of quoted words, and I feel like some can just be summarized.

3. "locate faith in the heart and doubt in the head" - same with previous, but I’m not as bothered by this one

• I feel both this and the confessors bit are better put in quotes since I feel their descriptions in the show do a better job than I could at describing exactly what they are. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

4. I’m assuming the last paragraph is there to explain the backstory of The Silence? Shouldn’t you put the comments about the Silence after that instead of before as to not confuse readers unfamiliar with Doctor Who (like me)?

• Yes, since the Silence and the Church have their in-universe chronology not follow the same chronology as real world air dates, I felt it was better to elaborate on this before getting into the Appearances so their appearances made sense. Which comments are you referring to? The Silence is only mentioned for the first time in the last paragraph, and the only thing discussed beforehand are the Silents, which are a separate thing entirely, albeit with many members of the race being associated with the Church/the Silence. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I’ve confused the silence and the silents together. You’re right Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

If it helps, I've done some work on the Silence's article to make it more clear that the Silence article is about the species known as the Silents, while this article covers The Silence as in the organization. Hopefully should make the distinction between the two clearer. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

In television:

1. Who is River Song? I’d include a short explanation

• Added a brief statement stating she's an ally of the Doctor, mostly because getting any deeper into her lore would probably overcomplicate the description significantly for non-fans, though if you have suggestions here I'm open to them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

All good, that makes sense Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

2. "events of "The Pandorica Opens" (2010) but inadvertently" - change to "events of "The Pandorica Opens" (2010), but inadvertently"

3. Subsequent is used a few times. I’d recommend changing at least one of the uses

4. "kill the Doctor, but after being shot by Adolf Hitler, regenerates" - "ill the Doctor, but, after being shot by Adolf Hitler, regenerates"

5. "2011 episode "Closing Time" and forced to kill" - change to "2011 episode "Closing Time" and is forced to kill"

6. I think the last two paragraphs could be lumped together into one. The second to last one is very short, and adding the last one onto the end of it will make the article flow a bit better

• I kept them separate because while the second to last paragraph ties into the whole "Silence" bit and is part of an overarching narrative, the 2024 appearance is unrelated to this arc, and I felt it would make more sense to keep separate to avoid confusion in regards to this episode's placement within events. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m still a little apprehensive about having such a short paragraph in there, but I won’t stop the article from passing for something that is basically my personal preference. Your rationale makes sense Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

7. "writer Steven Moffat to be because "I needed people who could operate with that degree of faith that a monster they couldn’t see existed." - I understand if you’d prefer not to, but I think it’d be better to paraphrase this instead of directing quoting it, as it is a pretty long quote.

• Tried shortening a little. If I didn't respond to any comments above it's because I have done as you asked and implemented the changes into the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Reception and analysis:

1. "Satire" is used twice very close together near the beginning, could you remove one?

2. "that the Church's depiction in the far future gave a highly positive interpretation of the Church's future, showing it still alive in the far future" - the use of future three times in one sentence seems overly excessive. I think removing two of them will fix it

3. "Andrew Crome, in writing in the" - change to "Andrew Crome, in writing for the"

4. "succumbing to the changes of society, indicating its decline in British society" remove at least one use of society

5. "depicts a "futurist nostalgia" in the" - I know you had issues paraphrasing previous quotes like this, and I’m fine with that, but I think the use of the quote is unneeded, especially considering it comes right before another quote. You can probably change it to "futuristic nostalgia" as it keeps the same meaning

6. "far future showed that for the church to survive into the future, it has to" - add a comma after "that" and maybe eliminate one of the uses of future if possible

7. "Kristine Larsen, writing in the book Doctor Who and Science: Essays on Ideas, Identities and Ideologies in the Series, cited Kovarian's" - change to "Writing for the book Doctor Who and Science: Essays on Ideas, Identities and Ideologies in the Series, Kristine Larsen cited Kovarian's" as a sentence directly before this one also used the "[author name], writing for [book name]," template

8. "represent a "corruption" of traditional" - I don’t think corruption needs to be quoted

@Pokelego999: And that's the review! These are the issues I found with that final section. Once these are done, I will do another check tomorrow to make sure any other issues have been ironed out and then hopefully pass the article. Best of luck Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crystal Drawers addressed your Reception concerns. Let me know what else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had another look at the article and have only found a few typos which I corrected myself. Very nice work, passing! If you're looking for an article to potentially review, I have one that needs reviewing (shameless self promoting!!) Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review

Sources look good and so does spotcheck! No issues with the images, but I am a bit concerned since The Silence (11030194386).jpg seems to be up for deletion. I don’t think(?) this is an issue that should be brought up at GAC, though, so the images and sources are good to go. Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Silence image has come up before; if it gets deleted during the course of that discussion then I have no qualms, but since it's already being discussed on Commons I will leave the discussion to be handled there rather than splitting discussion across multiple forums. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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.