Talk:Doctor Who series 14/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 04:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this sometime in the coming days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-Looks good, but would it be possible to include info on Reception?

Episodes

-"Maestro appears, revealing themself as a child of the Toymaker, with similar powers around music." Clarify this a bit since we don't know the Toymaker's powers and it isn't clear if it means the powers come out around music or if Maestro's powers are similar to Toymaker's music ablities

-"to investigate the woman they have seen throughout time." This woman is not acknowledged before now, so some clarification on her exact role would be beneficial.

-"UNIT already know her: tech entrepreneur, Susan Triad, whose staff Mel has infiltrated." You could probably drop the colon and first comma and write it as "UNIT are already aware of her as tech entrepreneur Susan Triad..."

-"The Doctor realises they can find Ruby's birth mother –" I feel the dash can be substituted with an "and" or something similar

-Make sure to put years of release on the hatnotes here

Casting

-Looks good

Production

-I feel the self-described descriptions of the episodes in the Writing section isn't too necessary since they're summaries of things we know already. Additionally, they're randomly split down the middle into two paragraphs. If this information is kept, it should be kept together.

-Maybe include an image of Murray Gold in Music?

Release

-Looks good

Reception

-Looks good

Overall

@TheDoctorWho: -Overall comment: Make sure to be consistent with whether the source links are hyperlinked or not. I've noticed a mix of both as I've been going through this.

-Citation 1 is Doctor Who TV, which was previously determined by consensus to be unreliable. Please seek a replacement source for where it is used.

-Overall this is looking very good. Patch up the above and I'll do my spotcheck.

Not done with these quite yet (nearly am), just adding a quick to do list for myself with some other things I noticed so I don't lose my place for when I pick this back up:

Replace Doctor Who TV
Replace The Doctor Who Companion
Swap Doctor Who Unleashed cites from cite web to cite episode
Fill in bare Amazon reference
Saw at least one RT source with no author
Address SHOUTING in reference titles
Replace/remove TikTok source
Replace Daily Mirror (if possible)

I should hopefully be able to wrap this up tomorrow! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Just to clear up the distinction, it appeared that there were cites to both doctorwho.tv and doctorwhotv.co.uk within the article. Both of these listed "Doctor Who TV" in their |work= fields. The first one is a commercial channel published by the BBC, so while it is a primary source, I'm assuming it's still considered okay for use? I have replaced or removed all uses of the second one. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho The primary source should be fine for the purposes of a GA. The latter source was the one I had issues with. Have you patched up the other sourcing issues above? Was going to take a closer look at the sourcing during my Spotcheck, so I do just want to make sure this is all resolved before I begin. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Yes, I took care of it today! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho Spotcheck. As there are a lot of sources, I'll be reviewing twenty sources at random to verify the content is accurate.

Sources reviewed: 126, 30, 150, 131, 57, 83, 69, 56, 68, 167, 27, 216, 166, 18, 153, 88, 123, 193, 206, 100.

-Cannot access Source 30, 69, 88, 123. A brief search indicates their contents seem accurate.

-Source 131 and Source 100 use CultBox, which is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:WHO. A CTRL+F through the source bank indicates another 15 usages of it. I will not fault you for this since the discussion came up during the review period, but I will likely put this on hold until the discussion resolves itself.

-What is the reliability of Ref 57 and 59 (Winter is Coming), Ref 17 (The Nerds of Color), Ref 128 (Nerdgazm)?

Done

-Ref 27 doesn't state the exact debut of Kate, though I am unfamiliar on if that date needs to be cited or not.

Done(by rewording)

-Ref 18 only states that "Also keeping the show grounded in the present day are Gatwa and Gibson, a young and giddy pairing giving big Gen Z energy, even if Gatwa, 31, is slightly older."

Done

-Ref 193 and Ref 196 is a multi-ref; Wikipedia:DEXERTO applies here. Is there any particular reason this source is being used over anything else? Its use should be shied away from if possible.

-Ref 206 is having a cite error, so I can't view its contents.

Done

Other things from a brief glance over the source bank:

-Ref 23 uses Wikipedia:METRO, an unreliable source.

Done

-Any particular reason only one of the Magazine citations uses SFNs?

Done(used cite mag)

-Ref 175 needs a space.

Done

Nothing too major here barring the CultBox discussion, so I feel this should likely be fine once the above are patched up. Will be placing this on hold until the CultBox discussion is resolved. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the review and decided to help, despite not being nom or co-nom (hope that's okay). Replaced refs 57 and 59, 17 is def unreliable, Nerdgazm seems reliable, based on their editorial policy and about us page. Replaced ref 23, fixed ref 175, and replaced one of the cultbox refs. The sfn was me, I was trying to fix the magazine cites a few days ago, but seems like TDW fixed it in a diff way in the meantime, sorry about that. (edit- fixed some more) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the page history, I'm assuming ref 18 at the time was in reference to the USA Today source? There's a quote in there from Gatwa that says "I would hope that my Doctor is a Doctor for all generations," Gatwa says. "Energy is what fuels the Doctor. We describe the relationship (between the Doctor and Ruby) as energetic and fast, which feels quite youthful." TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really specify "Gen Z" though. The comment on a more youthful duo is accurate though and I see no problem keeping that in the article, but the Gen Z one, unless cited somewhere where it's specifically stated, is probably better off removed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still plan on finishing this up, hopefully sooner rather than later. Three of my GAN's were being reviewed at the same time, so I had been focusing on those, but the other two were recently passed. If you don't mind leaving it on hold for another week or so, I'll try to wrap this one up. It'll take a minute to hunt down replacements for CultBox or remove what can't be cited elsewhere. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho sounds good! I'm more than fine with waiting a bit since you've been very responsive at this discussion and the article is in a primarily good shape. Best of luck with your other GANs! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho and Pokelego999: I knew where to find issues of DWM, which had been where CultBox had sourced most of their info, so I decided to replace them where possible. Only two refs remain, one which would require OR and insta posts to replace, and another which is mentioned in an even more unreliable source. So I would suggest just letting them remain, as the info is accurate enough, should exception can be made. Also, would like to apologise if I messed up anything trying to replace refs, though I have tried not to. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 is 109 verified by 108? Regardless, I'm personally in the boat of not allowing unreliable sources, especially if their own sources are unreliable. Instagram posts should be fine if they fall under PRIMARY, but if the info can't be sourced without a degree of doubt, I wouldn't use them at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, each clause is refed by diff ref, and also describes different episodes. I don't think the two refs can be replaced then. I'll leave it to TheDoctorWho to see if he can find anything, or what he wants to change/remove as it is his GAN. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found something for the first one and replaced it. But for the second, it's like 3 insta posts(all from 26 April 2024) just to source the info- whose urls I am not to find. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: I've addressed the last Cultbox source, the two Dexerto sources, and the Gen Z thing from above. I believe that should wrap up the last of your concerns. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho should be good to go. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]