Talk:The Abominable Snowmen

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Abominable Snowmen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 06:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Delcoan (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking this up!

In return, for your pledge, can you review 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4 please?

Admittedly very far from my usual topic area, but I can definitely take this on, yes. Thank you for taking up this review! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

Will have comments for this article within the next 30 hours. Delcoan (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, here is my review! Please let me know if you have any questions.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written: The article is written well; my main "negative" comments for this particular section can be seen directly below in 1a.
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	My primary concern is that "serial" and "episode" are used a lot. I'm not exactly sure what the Wikipedia policy is for the max number of usage of a specific word, (or if one even exists), but some possible good replacements could, in some instances, be part, entry, or installment. For future reference, as of the review, usage of serial is 44 and usage of episode is 34. Also, not really a concern, but do you think including in parentheses the actor's name after mentioning a character is needed? Maybe instead could be something like this? One grammar error I found was: "The remainder of filming was done in at Lime Grove Studios, with filming wrapping on 14 October 1967." Not sure if you want to delete "in" or "at". And, this sentence reads a bit unclear: "Troughton was given a large fur coat for filming the serial, and was worn by the Second Doctor during its events."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No concerns here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: Overall, I give the check outcome a weak . I think, based upon the check, I could have failed this section, but when considering that some of the other sources, such as 2, was used 23 times, my random checking may have simply been unlucky. I checked the following sources: Citation 5: Archived link seems to be dead. Citation 20: says it will be released on September 5th. Citation 8 letter b: says all info contained in the preceding sentence. Citation 10: All good. Citation 7 letter b: Tibet is not mentioned in the article. Citation 12: does not include this serial in that source. Also, is there a reason for it being blacked out? Citation 21: All good.
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No concerns here.
	2b. 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).	No concerns here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	From an Earwig check, this seems to be good; I also did not find anything during my source spot-check. One thing, though, was this when used for citation 8, as it is a direct copy: ...all that remains are two short clips".
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes, though I think, regardless of if you end up creating a section similar to the Ozark article section mentioned above to replace parentheses with actor names, a section like that would be useful regardless.
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes. But, woah: "According to Jack Watling one of the actors playing the Yeti fell hundreds of feet during filming and was feared dead, but was merely inebriated and fortunately cushioned by the foam rubber inside the costume." One or two more sentences of info (if it exists) I feel would be very informative as this seems to be a big thing that occurred in filming.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No concerns here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: No concerns here.
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes; all images come from the same source (https://viewer.library.wales/1578047#?xywh=-2437%2C-758%2C7273%2C5170) and it seems they all use the 4.0 license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes; all images are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, I am going to put it on hold. This is a very well-written article, and my main concerns stem from sourcing. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I am looking forward to your response!

Further comment/question that I felt didn't fit into any of the above boxes:

Do you think for the sentence "Mervyn and Haisman went to great pains to ensure authenticity with the Tibetan monks in the serial, reflecting this by naming Padmasambhava after a real-world master of Buddhism," Tibetan Monks should be linked and/or Buddhism? Delcoan (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "serial" and "episode", they are terms with distinct meanings, see WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. Regarding do you think including in parentheses the actor's name after mentioning a character is needed?, see WP:WHO/MOS#Episode pages, which says When mentioning characters for the first time, include their actors' names in brackets. Citation 12 is only blacked out if you don't accept their cookies. The web page is paged and (initially) reverse chronological, so you either need to click "Next" a few times, or click a column heading to resort the table by that column. But try this link. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Delcoan Redrose has addressed most of the quirks I would've, but on your above:

-On your serial/episode counts, I'm getting considerably different numbers via the CTRL+F than you are; 35 and 17, respectively, which seem far more reasonable. I believe the excessive counts from a CTRL+F not in the edit menu, which includes mentions in the infobox, short description, categories, etc which are artificially inflating the amount actually used in the article. I can still trim some mentions if need be, though.

-I've fixed the link for five; whoever put that there clearly forgot to not link to copyvio sources. I've linked it to a Google Books preview where you can see it mentions the Yetis' designer, let me know if that works for you.

-DWN and Outpost Gallifrey actually should've been removed per recent source consensus, so I've substituted those for The Complete History source. The source for the Tibet mention has been swapped to one that clarifies it directly.

-There wasn't much on the fall beyond that brief bit from what I could find, but I did shift mention of the slippery terrain to that paragraph to provide some context for the fall in the first place. Let me know if this helps.

I believe this is all of your comments? Let me know if that resolves matters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Thank you for letting me know!

@Pokelego999: Great job with your changes; I have just made a few copyedits myself, and I will now pass! Congratulations! Delcoan (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Some of which I reverted. The terms "episode" and "serial" are not synonymous, see my earlier post. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)