Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this nomination is on the backlog drive list, so I'm taking it on. I know little to nothing of Doctor Who if that means something. I'll be referring to previous GA nominations as well as the other good series articles. Recon rabbit 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lead

~~The use of "This" rather than "It" to refer to the series is awkward and not replicated on other series articles.~~
Changed to "it"
A majority of filming Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing or is the phrase missing a word?
looks strange to me too, but grammar checkers online do not show any errors; would it be better to change it?
It's probably a preference thing. I don't mind whatever decision is made.
I prefer keeping it as is. Done

Episodes

~~Major corrections were made in the previous review. It may be beneficial to note the length of the supplemental episodes and Tardisodes in comparison to the main episodes.~~
Added length of tardisodes, the length of the others are mentioned on their own article page, so I haven't added them.

Casting

Anything I would correct here is preferential on the use and absence of commas. No changes Y

Production

which had its roots in a story about "Queen Victoria and a werewolf" which Davies had been contemplating since 2004 Change one of these whiches to avoid repetition Done (changed second which to ", something")
due to the cost involved in creating another planet, according to Davies with only two stories set on another planet the "according to Davies" might be more clearly connected to the prior sentence than the latter Done (reworded)
that includes the middle eight, after Gold omitted the "middle eight" why is middle eight in quotes only once here? is it referring to the middle eight seconds? Done (explained what they are, removed one)

Release

The promotion of the second series also took various other forms This seems overly qualified - maybe remove various since the same word is used in the next paragraph Done
they updated the fictional websites they had created before the association episodes such as those of Mickey and UNIT with their own website saw the release of mini-episodes of 2-3 mins, called Tardisodes, are there missing words or punctuation here? Looks like a run on sentence that gets confused at "website saw the release". Done
the release of their first programme-specific Christmas double issue in 16 years instead of the simple generic one for the release of The Christmas Invasion[...] this sentence seems to be missing a predicate? Done

Reception

Link AI rating or gloss to Appreciation Index? Done (wikilinked)
and use of cliff hangers also received praise,[148][152][156][157]. Which punctuation mark do you want to use here? Done (chose period)
mixing both "trumpet blares and subtle emoti-motifs", very well; this is a strange construction, I would omit "very well" and use a period instead of a semicolon, since along with the dynamic nature of the series and the various settings doesn't follow as being "mixed" as part of the soundtrack and could be rewritten as a standalone sentence. It should be clear that these praises are from a singular source, that both things are characterized as playful, etc. Done (reworded)
supremely entertaining television, playing only by its own rules and excelling at it. this should be stated by quoting the reviewers, it's unusual to use this kind of language in wiki-voice. Done (rephrased)
The finale was characterized as an intense epic which is still led by character-driven drama, with the intensity inherent in the strength of the show's two biggest foes combined with a moving and poignant story about loss and refusing to let go with Rose inconsolably slapping the wall, and the Doctor shedding a tear in his despair this could be split into two sentences, and "poignant" should be quoted - it should be clear that the series is characterized as poignant or intense, and that it isn't an inherent quality of the work. Done
writing that Doctor Who always finds ways to think big and deliver on this scale rather than paraphrasing, it would be better to directly quote Braxton. Done

References

Layout: Nothing unusual to note here. Y
Copyright violations: The most likely point where this would happen, the episode descriptions, give no results when trying to search these backwards. Other results are quotes from the reception section. I give it a pass. Y
Original research:

Spot checking

Based on this revision:

[1] Y Numbers match up
[3] Y confirms dates on [1]
[10] Y
[29] Y though it doesn't explicitly state K9 was voiced by John Leeson in "School Reunion".
[31] Y
[53] Y as supported by [52]
[67] Y
[71] Y
[73] and [76] are identical references. Y
- Fixed, removed one
[84] Only states that Graeme Harper directed The Caves of Androzani. The Guardian article ([80]) doesn't mention the specific episodes directed by Harper. Y
- Added a source for RotD
[88] Y
[90] Y
[98] Y
[105] Y
[108] Y
[143] Y
[149] Y
[160] Y "comedown", not "stepdown" (fixed)
[170] Y

Fixed, Reconrabbit. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Broad: Sections have been expanded from lists of names to larger prose sections (per GA3) and each area expected in an article on this topic is present (episodes, casting, production, release, and reception). Y
Narrow: Specific concerns from GA3 in each applicable area have been addressed. Y

Stability

Neutrality: Some parts of the reception are stated in a way that makes it unclear who is applying a specific quality to the series. Could be construed as puffery on behalf of the work without attribution or quotations.
- Will give the whole section a glance tomorrow; I was a new editor when I added that, so the quoting and paraphrasing was very wonky. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring: Very infrequent disruption, nothing in the scope of this review. Y

Images

Licenses: Cover art attributed as fair use, rationale in place. Other images are CC BY 2.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0. Y
Relevance: Cover art is used appropriately in the infobox. The use of a ratings chart is in line with other series articles (I'm assuming the info comes from Pixley 2006). Photos of the main character actors are useful, though I guess David Tennant is in the Development section to avoid crowding. Y

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

@Reconrabbit: Replied to some of the remarks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: All remarks fixed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: All done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Made changes. Do you think the reception section is good now, or should I start from scratch, in case it looks like a mess? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better. I don't have any more qualms with the prose... Give me a few and I'll finish up looking at the sources I have access to. Recon rabbit 13:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]