Talk:Matt Smith revealed as 11th incarnation of Doctor Who

Revision 749632 of this article has been reviewed by White Cat (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Article is detailed, I was actually going to look this information up (for personal curiosity) had it not been published here. -- Cat chi? 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 749632 of this article has been reviewed by White Cat (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Article is detailed, I was actually going to look this information up (for personal curiosity) had it not been published here. -- Cat chi? 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Interwiki link?

The link to w:Murder in the Cathedral was deleted with the comment "the information given about this is per a secondary source".

I am afraid I am puzzled: which secondary source, and why does that make an interwiki link inappropriate? Isn't it normal to use secondary and tertiary sources for background info?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source. Both the IP [1] and subsequently the new user [2] failed to provide verification that The Cathedral referred to is in fact Murder in the Cathedral. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Does this help? http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/interviews/view/item100026/Matt-Smith/ --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have added it to the source list. It's kind of a bit after the publish date of the article, but since it is only being used as a source for a small piece of info, I think it is okay to add it to the listed sources. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. As this is an article about a British TV series, shouldn't the spelling used be that of British English? I speak of "programme" which is rendered as the US "program' in the article. Thanks.Albanman (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, yes. However the Wikinews style guide is relatively lax on this. The options are 'spell per the location of the news event' or 'spell per the location of the initial author'. Regrettably, in this case, it is a USian for the latter. (Bugged me too). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If this issue had been raised when the article was published, it could have been addressed, then. It has now been four months since that point in time. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)