Talk:Jo Grant

Excessive commas?

I edited the main page eliminating what appeared to be excessive and out of place commas. It could be that it is merely a difference in writing style, either within wikis or in common use. Could somebody compare the two and let me know. I consulted Wikipedia's M.O.S. but did not find any helpfull information.

Much appreaciated, Stillnotginger 22:38, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

No, there aren't

As you requested, I've compared your revision of Jo Grant, in which you claim to have gotten rid of "unnecessary" commas, with the one that came before it. I've found that, by and large, you made the article grammatically less correct. Let's take them one by one:

Original

Despite this initial clumsiness, her failures fueled her enthusiasm, and she became more determined to prove people wrong about her. So much so, that, after recovering from being hypnotised by the Master to kill the Doctor, she disobeyed orders and followed the Doctor to Rossini's Circus, and was able to rescue him.

The problem here isn't overuse of commas. In fact, they're all absolutely in the right place. The problem is that the second "sentence" is actually a fragment. The second sentence needs a subject. Your fixes read like this:

Despite this initial clumsiness her failures fueled her enthusiasm and she became more determined to prove people wrong about her, so much so that after recovering from being hypnotised by the Master to kill the Doctor she disobeyed orders and followed the Doctor to Rossini's Circus and was able to rescue him.

What you've done is combine the whole thing into one long sentence. This is the very definition of a run-on sentence. It needs to be broken up by full stops.

Despite this initial clumsiness, her failures fueled her enthusiasm, and she became more determined to prove people wrong about her. When, for example, she recovered from the Master's hypnosis, she disobeyed orders and followed the Doctor to Rossini's Circus. There, she was able to rescue him.

Notice, though, that I've still kept most of the commas of the original. There should be a comma after the introductory clause beginning with "despite". Prepositional and adverbial phrases which begin a sentence should have a comma to separate them from the subject of the sentence. So: "Instead of this, I chose that", "Notwithstanding your objections, I proceeded", "When she recovered from hypnosis, she disobeyed orders", etc.

Moving on.

Original

Having been hypnotised by the Master once, Jo was able to resist his hypnosis on further encounters by reciting nursery rhymes (TV: Frontier in Space). One such time, she reacted to the hypno-sound by seeing a Drashig, a Mutant and a Sea Devil.

There's nothing wrong with this at all. You removed the commas and made the sentences less clear. There definitely should be a comma after both introductory clauses. It's absolutely critical to the first sentence, though, because it makes the reader wonder where the missing comma should be. The reader might think the sentence should be:

Having been hypnotised by the Master, once Jo was able to resist his hypnosis on further encounters by reciting nursery rhymes.

The reader gets to the end of that sentence, having filled in the comma on his or her own, and realizes it doesn't make sense. So he or she re-reads and gets:

Having been hypnotised by the Master once, Jo was able . . .

And that makes sense. The reason you need a comma there — aside from the fact that "them's the rulez" — is that it prevents other plausible readings from appearing as options to the reader. It nails down your meaning firmly.

Moving on.

Original

Jo claimed to be a qualified agent, but she may have exaggerated about this, in the same way she exaggerated the extent of her A-Levels.

You changed this to:

Jo claimed to be a qualified agent, she may have exaggerated about this in the same way she exaggerated the extent of her A-Levels.

And you're 100% wrong. I see this kinda thing all over the place on this wiki and it drives me, as a former English teacher, insane. You cannot remove the "but" unless you're prepared to stop the sentence and start a new one. "But" is a conjunction which allows you to tie two complete sentences together into one. If you remove a conjunction, you must insert a period — or, in some cases, a semi-colon. A conjunction can never be replaced by a mere comma. Commas separate individual nouns, adjectives, adverbs or dependent clauses; they do not separate two independent clauses. What's an independent clause? Basically, it's a sentence. It has a subject and a verb and could easily be ended by a period — like, "Jo claimed to be a qualified agent" and "she may have exaggerated about this".

Again, then, you have rendered a sentence less correct by your efforts. There are various other places where you've removed the comma following an introductory prepositional/adverbial clause from a sentence, but I won't list all those.

Another little change you made was this:

Original

In fact, she may have been with the Doctor for as much as a year before she even stepped foot into the TARDIS. When she finally did, the Doctor discovered that Jo was not a particularly natural time traveller.

You did this:

In fact, she may have been with the Doctor for as much as a year before she even stepped foot into the TARDIS. When she finally did go inside the Doctor discovered that Jo was not a particularly natural time traveller.

There are a cople of issues here. As before, removing the comma allows for multiple interpretations — especially since you added the words "go inside". It's possible to think the comma should go: "When she finally did go inside the Doctor," until you hit the word "discovered" and realize you need to back up and re-read the sentence. Fact is, there's nothing wrong with the sentences as they originally read. It's perfectly plain what the meaning is supposed to be without adding "go inside" and removing the comma. You've substituted the clear for the slightly ambiguous. Note, however, that there's nothing grammatically wrong with adding "go inside", but it's not particularly economic language. If you did add "go inside", you'd still need a comma to close out the adverbial phrase.

Skipping ahead, past a number of your erroneous removals of conjunctions like "but" and "and", we come across this:

Original

Ironically he had orders for her to go there anyway, so her threats were unnecessary.

which you have reduced to:

Ironically he had orders for her to go there anyway, her threats were unnecessary.

This one tiny removal has completely gutted the sentence of its meaning. You cannot remove linking words like this, because it doesn't leave the reader with any understanding of how the who independent clauses relate to each other. Is one supposed to be the consequence of the other ("therefore", "so", "consequently")? Does one merely happen chronologically after the other ("thereafter")? There are any number of possible relationships between the two clauses, and you've just taken away the one word we needed to parse the sentence correctly.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I'm reverting to a version before you got involved. You've — and I'm not sure there is even a "correct" word for what you've done — "de-copy-edited" this article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for all the work and thanks for all the apt criticsm. Thank you very much for answering the question and confirming it was a good idea to seek opinions before continuing. --Stillnotginger 17:39, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Jo's uncle

I've removed the bit about "General Hobson" being her uncle, because it was unsourced. The only reference I could find to the man was in Blood Heat —but that's an alternative universe Jo. Does anyone know of a reference to Hobson in the standard DWU? If so we can put that bit back in. Otherwise, I'm assuming that Jack Canning is the uncle who got her into UNIT, and that there is no discontinuity implied in asserting so. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 13:44, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

According to The Magician's Oath, her Uncle Martin Bailey (guessing on the spelling) worked for UNIT and he got Jo the job there. Tzigone 17:26, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

New Main Image

How about this image for the new main image?

Not to seem rude, but she has had some significant changes in her face since TV: The Green Death, so I think a new main image of her appearance in TV: Death of the Doctor, is necessary. We show the older Sarah Jane Smith, so why not the older Jo Grant (Jones). Tell me what you think. Cortion 10:16, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to show her in her prime. The image for Rani Chandra shouldn't be the old lady from The Mad Woman in the Attic, because her main appearances are as a child. Jo mainly featured as her younger self, so the picture that's up is probably better. Sarah Jane is different because she has significant appearances prior to leaving the Doctor, in the same way the picture for the Brigadier isn't from Enemy of the Bane.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:47, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Can we change the header "main aliases"

In the infobox it looks silly to have Jo Grant listed as an alias. It was never an alias, it was her name. Is there any way of changing it so it reads "maiden name" or "previously known as" or even "A.K.A."? 23skidoo ^{talk to me} 20:40, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Is Jo actually dead?

I understand that Jo might have been confirmed as dead in a spin-off media, but should it not be noted that this happens in another media and not in the official TV continuity? On the main Wikipedia character articles, they have a Character History section, and then another for appearances in other media (such as spin-offs), and state that their relation to the series is open to interpretation.

Is it not a bit confusing for the pages on this site to treat everything that happens in all stories as one narrative? Sunshine4321 ☎ 15:14, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

No.

We're not Wikipedia. As you've said Wikipedia is there and people can read their interpretation, we're not trying to duplicate Wikipedia's efforts.

We treat stories equally, see our Tardis:Canon policy for more information. There is no "official TV continuity" in the way you describe (see our Canon article for more information).

It's more a case of multiple narratives one universe.

Jo Grant's history is, compared to others (Liz Shaw and Ace for example) is quite simple, and as you can see on those two other articles they both present the information from a wide range of sources, together. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:52, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Married names

As we don't have the forums, this seemed like a reasonable enough place to bring this up; some pages for married people (almost exclusively women) refer to them in the opening line like this:

• Josephine Jones (née Grant)
• Martha Smith-Jones (née Jones)
• Colin Colchester-Price (né Price)

Others like this:

• Elizabeth "Liz" Shaw, later Haggard
• Sarah Jane Smith, later Morley

Whilst we also have:

• Amelia Jessica "Amy" Pond — sometimes styled Amelia Williams after her marriage
• Donna Noble was a companion [...] She later married Shaun Temple and became Donna Temple-Noble.

I think we should probably standardise this so that the pages are consistent. I personally favour the first and most widespread option. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 18:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally agree - the first option is the better of them.

Epsilon📯 📂

19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as the page names don't actually change (for searchability reasons), I think the first option would be the neatest and easiest to keep consistent. LauraBatham ☎ 05:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The first option seems clearest and most elegant to me. While we're standardising opening lines, I suggest we also add a rule against inserting obvious diminutives as if they were middle names or discrete nicknames. "Elizabeth "Liz" Shaw" is redundant and faintly ridiculous: it is self-evident that Liz stands for Elizabeth, especially as "Liz Shaw" is plastered across the top of the screen in big letters. An opening paragraph that simply introduces her as "Elizabeth Shaw" and then switches to "Liz" is the way to go. Nobody has ever called her "Elizabeth "Liz" Shaw" - it just isn't a sensible way of communicating a legal and common name together. Frankensteined names like "Amelia Jessica "Amy" Pond" are plain weird and misleading. Wikipedia added a rule against this stylistic error years ago. Gowlbag ☎ 06:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this name style recently popped up on Dan Lewis as well. "Daniel "Dan" Lewis" just seems wrong.

Epsilon📯 📂

08:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that, particularly for characters with diminutives that aren't obvious like Perpugilliam/Peri and Thomas Hector/Hex. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 16:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

An opening line that begins "Perpugilliam "Peri" Brown" does not actually contain the information that Peri is a diminutive for Perpugilliam, any more than "Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson" means "The Rock" is a diminutive of "Dwayne". I didn't even know until now that Hex's nickname was derived in-universe from his middle name, because seeing him introduced as "Thomas Hector "Hex" Schofield" had not communicated that to me. If diminutives have a non-obvious relationship to the original, then maybe they should actually be explained in the prose of the lead rather than just shoehorned into the middle of what would otherwise be helpfully complete, unambiguous legal names. Gowlbag ☎ 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed incorrect info

Putting this here for clarity. PROSE: /Carpenter/Butterfly/Baronet does not say Jo was born in 1951 nor that she was 77 when she died. It seems this misconception started because of this edit from 2010. The editor that assumed she was 77 because her birth year was given as 1951 or 1952. However, those years were an incorrect assumption based on Death of the Doctor. LegoK9 ☎ 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Similar problem: Jo Grant's grandfather died when Jo was 7 years old. But did AUDIO: The Mists of Time explicitly say he died in 1958 or was that year based on Jo being 7 and the incorrect assumption of her being born in 1951? LegoK9 ☎ 04:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Everything I read about AUDIO: The Other Woman says Jo was 19 in 1970. This would make her birth year 1951. However, this page said 1961? Was that bad math? LegoK9 ☎ 05:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)