Forum:DWM issues: please help (re)write leads

There are a lot of different ranges that need help, but I'd like to shine a light on DWM issues. I thought that maybe having awards in the Game of Rassilon for this range might help, but we're making only marginal improvements. So let me nudge your attention back in the direction of our favourite magazine.

The big thing that needs to be done across the board is that issues need to have a proper and accurate lead. Many articles have gotten a lead in the past six months, but most of these new leads are just one sentence long, and they're misleading or just plain wrong. This is mostly because most editors don't really understand how the DWM cover dating system works.

For instance, the current lead to DWM 165 says this:
 * The 165th issue of Doctor Who Magazine was published in October 1990.

This is false. The cover date is 3 October 1990. That means that 3 October 1990 was the last date on which it was current. It was in fact published the day after the previous issue, or 9 September 1990.

Please remember this when editing DWM issues: after DWM 164, the cover date is not the publication date, but the expiration date.

Leads are very tricky to fix with a bot, so I need your help to fix these fallacious intros. Better phraseology on everything post-164 would be something like:
 * The xth issue of Doctor Who Magazine was the one that was pulled from British news stands on.

or
 * Doctor Who Magazine #nnn was the current issue of the publication from  to.

The other point to make is that a lead which just points out dates is the absolute, bare minimum. It's not the standard to which we should be working. Like any other article, the lead should try to contextualise the subject in terms of its most notable features. Every issue of DWM is unique, so every issue has some point of notability. Often, the salient thing about an issue is its biggest non-regular feature or interview. Because most issues contain a pretty thorough list of its contents, you can generally figure out which are the unique features of the piece. To see some examples of issues with longer leads, drop by DWM 164, DWM 354, and DWM 238.

So please, if you can, drop by the DWM issues category and help out! Thanks :)

16:22: Thu 29 Mar 2012


 * Can the Bot do a mass wipe of the intro for all DWMs? of does it need to be done by hand? If by hand, we can start by getting rid of both date and month and leaving the year, and then we can work on trying to get the date. I think having the publication date is a really good thing to lead with for DWM. MM/ Want to talk? 21:43, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could it do a mass wipe of the intro? Sure.  But the point of the exercise isn't to wipe it.  It's to change it.  I think you're not quite understanding what needs to be done.  All we have to do is to change the wording slightly.  The information is actually on the page, conveniently to hand in the infobox.  Whatcha do is take the cover date from the infobox and work it into a lead sentence like the ones given upthread.  There's no need to "start by getting rid of both the date and month", "leaving the year", and then "work on" trying to get the date. The date's on the page already, just not in the lead.  No research is called for.


 * However, that said, the leads should be bigger than just, "Hey, this is what it says on the cover about the date." So a part of the virtue of doing this by hand is that we might actually be able to beef up the leads.  05:14: Sun 08 Apr 2012


 * Wait, is it really on newsstands the day after last month's cover date? Because I'm looking at DWM 419, (cover date 1 April) where it's previewing the month of April's TV episodes and DWM 420 (cover date April 29), which has reviewed April airings The Eleventh Hour and The Beast Below and mentions TEH's viewing figures. Or are the cover dates themselves false? -- Tybort (talk page) 01:06, May 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it really is. You're confused because you've got your facts wrong on just about every count.  Cover date of 419 is 31 March; of 420 it's 28 April. (If our site is agreeing with you, then we have an even bigger problem with DWM pages.)  And your description of the contents is way off.  419 has very little series 5 coverage at all.  What you're characterising as a series 5 "preview" is actually an interview with the non-Moffat exec producers.  And 420 previews TEH through F&S.  It doesn't review anything (other than CD stuff).  So actually 419 and 420 prove that the cover date is the "last day valid".  If it were the first day of release, then it would make no sense to be previewing TEH, because TEH had already premiered by 28 April.   23:02: Sun 06 May 2012
 * Oh, lord, I just went to DWM 419 and its saying that the cover date is 4 March, which is wholly wrong. It says 31 March 2010 clear as day on the cover.  Okay, at this point, nothing about our DWM dates should be regarded as true.  We need to absolutely verify by looking at each and every cover each and every date.   23:05: Sun 06 May 2012


 * Incidentally, I've been overwriting pages with the second solution with that of the first. The first type felt a lot clearer to me. -- Tybort (talk page) 21:28, May 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got up to #307, but from then on, it's nearly impossible to read the cover date to verify it from then on. I don't think I can do any more without owning physical copies. (Same with my earlier issue over 419 and 420) -- Tybort (talk page) 12:49, May 10, 2012 (UTC)