Talk:Nestene Consciousness and Autons

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nestene Consciousness and Autons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

It may take me a few days to go through everything, but I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, that delay was longer than I expected! But the article is looking very good -- as indicated below, I just have two small prose concerns.~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• The NFUR rationale for the Nestene Consciousness looks thorough and persuasive to me. The article would have an obvious gap if only the Autons were pictured. All the other images have good CC licenses. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• I did a prose pass, where I was pretty bold with some fundamentally stylisic changes -- please feel free to undo or change any of these that you don't consider improvements. In terms of the GA criteria of clarity, correctness, and encyclopedic tone, the prose generally looks good, with two notes:
  • The article is inconsistent about whether it's plural "Nestenes" or singular "Nestene". I think either is justifiable but should be consistent. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Davies believed they would provide a familiar element to children watching the series in the form of the mannequins I'm not sure what this means, so I feel like something is getting lost in the paraphrase. Could you share the original quote, or revisit? (The summary of this in the lead also doesn't make sense to me.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• No issues in earwig and no red flags in the list of references. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• For my source check, I looked at 2, 7, 8, 18, and 22, as numbered in this diff. They all check out, verifying without copyvio or close paraphrase. For book-length works, it would be helpful if you included a page number or specific chapter to simplify verification (those this is not required). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn On the pluralization issue: that mostly comes from me being a fan and having all the interpretations of the Nestene muddled. The show's pretty inconsistent on if it's a hivemind of multiple Nestenes or a singular entity; iirc the only time they're definitively shown as more than one is Terror of the Autons, and outside of that are often referred to as a singular "Consciousness" with it being unclear if it's a plurality or not. Sources didn't really do a good job clarifying either but most tend to consider it one entity from what I've seen. I've amended it to mostly refer to the Consciousness as neutrally as possible, but kept the plural for Terror since it's explicitly stated to be more than one there.

  What I mean on the quote you're hung up on (And what the quote says originally) is children would find mannequins familiar, so children would be able to know what the Autons were without knowing them well, in short. Not sure how to frame this too well in the article tbh, it's a confusing quote.

  Let me know on the quote deal, I would appreciate suggestions on how to better incorporate that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for quickly going through those varying versions of the name— looks good. For the quote, would it be accurate to say children would recognize mannequins from their everyday lives and wouldn’t need to be familiar with the show? That phrasing makes sense to me as a reason to go for Autons over eg Cybermen. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn re-worded in both places and added page numbers. Let me know what else needs to be done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, the page numbers are above and beyond! Thanks for that prose adjustment -- that addresses all my concerns. Happy to pass this now! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 14 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.