Talk:Doctor Who series 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who (series 2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVJ2L2L?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2007-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2007-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Saw all the episodes in this season a while back. Haven't ever edited or read the Wikipedia article. Will look it over, and post up a review later. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 14, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Gonna have to put this one on hold for now as there are several problems. I was gonna quick fail, but I see the nominator is quite active and from the nominator's username, it appears they'll probably get right on fixing these. The lede fails WP:LEAD, needs to be expanded to serve as a full standalone summary of the entire article's contents.

1. • to do

I was definitely planning to, but my gracious thanks to Dresken for working on the nomination requirements on the article! Especially while I'm in the middle of finals exams, but I definitely plan to work on it myself as well, as the nominator and all. -- Alex^TW 03:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Verifiable?: Several accuracy problems, will label them by sections:

1. Episodes: The first episode of the series, "New Earth", was also the first episode since Doctor Who was revived not to be set in the vicinity of Earth, and the first story since The Greatest Show in the Galaxy from Season 25 to be wholly set on an alien world; every episode of Series 1 had taken place either on Earth itself or on a space station in the vicinity of the planet. = unsourced production info, doesn't fit the guidelines for WP:PLOTSUMMARY, needs citations.
   •  Done -- Text removed Dresken (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Episodes: Two mini-episodes were also recorded: "Doctor Who: Children in Need" was produced for the 2005 Children in Need appeal, and interactive episode "Attack of the Graske" was recorded for digital television following the broadcast of "The Christmas Invasion". 13 TARDISODEs were also produced to serve as prequels to each episode. All episodes were filmed as part of the second series' production cycle. = uncited.
   •  Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Main characters: Following his brief appearance in the closing moments of "The Parting of the Ways" he was next seen in the Children in Need special, broadcast on 18 November 2005. "The Christmas Invasion", broadcast one month later, marked his first full episode. = uncited.
   •  Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Main characters: Noel Clarke's character Mickey Smith, a recurring guest character during the first series, featured in several episodes. = uncited.
   •  Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Guest stars: Camille Coduri continued to guest in the series as recurring character Jackie Tyler. Shaun Dingwall returned for several episodes as Pete Tyler and Penelope Wilton reprised her role as Harriet Jones. = uncited.
   •  Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
6. Production: The second series encompassed a loose story arc based around the word "Torchwood", which first appeared in the 2005 episode "Bad Wolf". The mythology of Torchwood is built across the series; in "The Christmas Invasion" it is revealed to be a secret organisation which possesses alien technology, and its establishment is shown in "Tooth and Claw". Contemporary Torchwood is finally visited by the Doctor and Rose in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday", at which point it is situated within London's Canary Wharf and accidentally allows the invasion of the Cybermen and, subsequently, the Daleks. The Doctor and Rose are forcibly separated by these events, which lead to Rose's entrapment within a parallel universe. = uncited.
   •  Done -- Added citations. Dresken (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
7. Production: A Children in Need special and an interactive episode, entitled "Attack of the Graske", were both produced alongside the series. = uncited.
   •  Done -- Added citation Dresken (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
8. Australia: In Australia, this series aired in 2006, on ABC at 7:30 pm Saturdays. The premiere episode was the 2005 Christmas special. During the runs of these episodes, the Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down was not shown at that time. This series aired again from Tuesday, 27 January 2009 starting with "The Christmas Invasion" at 8:30 pm. From 3 February 2009, not only was the show airing on ABC2 on Tuesdays at 8:30 pm, Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down episodes aired right after the episode. This is the second time that the Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down episodes were shown; the first time happened in 2008 when airing series 4 of Doctor Who. Then from 2 January 2012, episodes were shown at 7:30pm on ABC2 daily from Rose to The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe to the lead-up of Series 7. The lot of episodes were repeated again a second time later that year. = uncited.
   •  Done -- removed as unsourced and not notable. Dresken (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Awards and nominations: At the 2007 BAFTA TV Awards Crispin Green was nominated for Best Editing Fiction/Entertainment, while The Mill were nominated for Best Visual Effects. = uncited.
   •  Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Awards and nominations: At the 2007 Saturn Awards the show was nominated for two awards; Best Syndicated/Cable Television Series and Best Television DVD Release, it did not win either. The show was nominated for the Scream Award for Best TV show but did not win. At the 2007 SFX Awards, the show won Best TV Show, Euros Lyn and Steven Moffat won Best TV episode for "The Girl in the Fireplace". James Strong and Matt Jones were nominated for "The Impossible Planet"/"The Satan Pit" and Graeme Harper and Russell T Davies for "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". David Tennant won for Best TV Actor and Billie Piper won for Best TV Actress.[citation needed] = already tagged as "citation needed" = normally a "quick fail" criteria. = uncited.
    •  Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
11. Notes: Canadian release was originally announced as the same day as the US issue, but the decision by the CBC to schedule a two-month mid-season hiatus led to the release date being pushed back; ultimately, it was released before the CBC was able to air the final two episodes of the season. = uncited.
    •  Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
12. References: Much of References sect has red colored problems in citation templates: Check date values in:
    •  Done -- Dresken (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Article contains sections for major aspects, but much of it is unsourced at the time being.

1. •  Done -- all citations covered above. Dresken (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: Uncited awards info, already tagged as "citation needed", needs to be addressed promptly.

1. •  Done -- all citations covered above. Dresken (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

5. Stable? Stable over one month. No talk page problems.

6. Images?: 3 images used. 2 fair use. 1 free use. Free use is good. Fair use in infobox has good rationale. Not sure File:Doctor Who 2005 logo.png adds anything encyclopedic to the article and could be removed.

 Done -- removed image Dresken (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully nominator can address the citation issues in 7 days, good luck !

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference section problems

Bare links Many bare links and unformatted links in References. Sagecandor (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- fixed links in References. Dresken (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoted

Promoted. Thank you to AlexTheWhovian for the helpful responses on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More thanks to Dresken, they did far more than I did on this. -- Alex^TW 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Christmas Invasion

The BBC list The Christmas Invasion as the final episode of Season 1, not as the first episode of Series 2, despite the change of Doctor. [[1]] surely things need to be changed to reflect this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I added more to the critical reception section I think meeting requirements for GA OLI 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Doctor Who (series 2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No response to pings, article hasn't been worked on for around a month. Issues still remain, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Are these the only two issues? If so, I can begin working on rectifying these issues. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Music and filming sources. Working on cast source and critical reception. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Cast sources. Critical reception remaining. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

C Still working on it, sorry for the delay. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Any update Alex 21? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant, let me know your comments on the source issues below. I think it'll be tough to get this article to GA without resolving them, and fixing the issues might end up requiring some sizable modifications to the article, so I'll hold off on the rest of the review until the sources are settled. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I cut the whatcultrue source as its unreliable. Doctor Who News inst a great source but from what I have seen they typically accurate, with that being said I'll look for some alternatives. I have removed the episode citations, blogtorwho and David Tennant news are both bad sources which I think should be removed however they are the only two sources with that information, shannonsullivan has been removed, and BBC soundtrack has been tagged as dead. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! If an unreliable source is the only place with a piece of information you can find, the information should be removed from the article as well unfortunately. Given what you say about Doctor Who News, unless we can make a good case for its reliability, I think it and the corresponding information should be removed too. You could also try asking at WP:RSN about Doctor Who News specifically to see if we can get a consensus. I'm still seeing "David Tennant News" used (cite #96). Any luck finding alternate sources for the many DVD/home video release dates? —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have found information regarding Doctor Who News. Its a sucsessor to the Outpost Gallifrey news time. Outpost Gallifrey was seen as reliable until it was shut down. They do have restriction as to who can publish an article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm.. that was a while ago, and I'm unconvinced by Doctor Who News' website, which suggests that most of their staff are unpaid volunteers. It's essentially a large and well established fansite, not a journalistic endeavor. However, I would recommend posting a question about this at WP:RSN - if consensus there disagrees with me, I'm happy to accept it here. Without that, though, I think it'd be tricky to get to GA relying so heavily on Doctor Who News. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have opened it and it seems like its not bery good and should be removed. I will be doing so now. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Whatever you can do to find reliable sources (most likely the BBC or a TV industry publication) to replace the removed information would be great! Let me know when you've finished making changes and would like me to take another look. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If content is removed due to Doctor Who News being determined as unreliable by one editor, I will happily participate in a discussion to restore the content with the same source, as it will pull this article out of sync with every related article. Have there been any cases or evidence in which the site has been unreliable? Also, concerning MOS:DUPLINK, links are allowed to be introduced in each season, so unless the duplicate links are repeated per section, then I see no issue. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There was others it was put up at a notice board were others deemed in non-relaible. If you open up another post about it I would be willing to rediscuss it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Alex 21, the nominator is referring to this RSN discussion. Based on my personal judgment and the comments there, I don't think we can treat Doctor Who News as a reliable source. Other pages may or may not use it, but for GA standard, it's not suitable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that RNS discussion has not concluded, nor does it have any clear consensus. The use of this particular website as a source has paseed no less than twelve GA reviews, and is in use in 71 good articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the WP:RSN discussion, but I am not persuaded by the website's use in other articles. Their website describes their "news team" as volunteers. I don't see other reliable sources describing them as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as WP:RS should. I see a large and well-organized fansite, and while that's fine in some cases, it's not what I see as being at the GA standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, do you intend to re-assess the other 11 season articles that all use this site and have met GA, and the 58 remaining other GA articles that use this site? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, but feel free to raise them yourself at WP:GAR if you want. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Either that or removing the information if it is supported by other sources. Even if it is decided to keep Doctor Who News. Why did you revert the additional sources being added Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oversourcing. The ratings for all 874 episodes of Doctor Who are sourced through Doctor Who News; there is no need for oversourcing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of sourcing, I see you've replaced a number of cast sources with DoctorWho.TV; overreliance upon primary sources (as DoctorWho.TV is the official BBC website for the programme) instead of secondary sources, as per Wikipedia's preference for secondary sourcing, may cause other editors to re-evaluate this GA once again. Replacing one non-consensual sourcing problem with a policy-tangent sourcing problem is not the way to go about a GA. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If it becomes and issue I am sure there are a number of sources that can be used to replace them. You say all episodes are sourced by Doctor Who News, assuming there aren't sources that say the same thing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't have a problem with using the producer of the TV series as a reliable source on its cast. Primary sources cause issues when they lead to WP:OR or are misinterpreted or taken out of context by editors. There's nothing interpretable about the cast of a TV show. I would appreciate if you would let the nominator and I work on the review together. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't believe there's any such rule stating that only the nominator and reviewer can contribute to a GA discussion. Are you attempting to kick me out of this? I'd typically consider that bordering on WP:PA and WP:OWN, but given that I recognize you're newer here, I'll let it slide.

Per the WP:PST policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Since this GA review began, a primary source has been added to this article twelve times. That's extensive. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the primary sources I could look for non-primary sources I'm sure their there. May I suggest that the review I put on hold until a proper discussion can happen as to the quality of doctor who News l. Also the discussion was archived so you'd have to start a new lnr Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not as much a problem with the sources themselves, it is a problem with fixing an apparent unconfirmed sourcing problem with a vaster policy-borderline sourcing problem. Doctor Who News needs to be confirmed as an unreliable source first, and that needs a far greater discussion than one GA if it's already used in 71 other GA's. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Do any of the other GA reviews discuss the site? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi OlifanofmrTennant - I apologize for the confusion. The fact is, that there's only one reviewer at a time, and I am the reviewer right now. While Alex 21 is trying to be helpful, I'm afraid they are simply muddling the matter by giving you contradictory advice. The GA process is based on the idea of a single reviewer assessing the article against the GA criteria, and the nominator + others making changes in response. My assessment is that Doctor Who News is not reliable and should be removed, and that using the BBC as a source for casting is absolutely fine. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put the review on hold for a day or two until the issue is resolved; we cannot have multiple "reviewers" giving advice at cross purposes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, OlifanofmrTennant, I don't know. I simply ran a search of articles that include both "doctorwhonews" and "good article" in the article (indicating the use of {{good article}}), and returned with 71 results. The contents of those GA reviews, however, is not something I've looked at individually. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Alex 21: don't be snide, it's not productive. Multiple people are welcome to contribute to a GA discussion, but there is only one reviewer at a time. If you would like to help fix issues I mention, please feel free to assist. But it's unfair to the nominator to ask them to follow your advice and my advice simultaneously, especially as we disagree. That is simply confusing. I began this review. I will be finishing the review, one way or another, and determining whether or not to pass the article as a GA. You are welcome to improve the article and fix issues I mention. But again, there is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Third editor giving contradictory advice during GA review, I have been well within my right to provide the comments that I have been, so I would recommend that you change your viewpoint here. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to act as a co-nominator, you are very welcome to do so. If we cannot come to a consensus on this source and related issues, the review will likely have to be failed, unfortunately. My opinion has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News, and it doesn't look like the WP:RSN thread is likely to come to a different consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, with regards to MOS:DUPLINK, I don't think we are referring to the same thing. Generally, a link each in the lead, the body, and any embedded lists are enough. There are issues here - to start with, both Christmas special and The Christmas Invasion are linked twice in the lead alone. As mentioned, I recommend the tool User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to identify these problems. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Opened discussion at GAN talk page

Hi! I've opened a discussion at the GAN talk page, here. Please participate in the discussion there. The review is on hold until the issue is resolved. My view is that we cannot have multiple reviewers giving contradictory advice. There is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

See some related discussion here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant, @Alex 21, as I mentioned, I'm going to give it another day, but my view has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News. Therefore, this review will likely fail, unfortunately. However, there is no reason not to make improvements, re-nominate, and try your luck with a different reviewer. @OlifanofmrTennant, thank you for your improvements thus far to the article during the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I created a thread and invited you to participate, which you did do. I put out a request message in your talk page reaching out directly, you refused to participate and archived the discussion. You have been rather avoident of adressing the source. Your whole arguement has boiled down to "Its been used before so its fine". A small scale consensus was reached on the initall thread. You have refused to elaborate your point and claimed and have cause the review to be dragged out. Repetedly throught the whole situation you have claimed WP:SENIORITY. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this review was unsuccessful due to an inability to come to agreement on changes to be made. The review is closed with no prejudice against renomination. I encourage the nominators to improve the article further and renominate at a future date. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a lot of WP:DUPLINKS - I recommend installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which will provide a handy tool to highlight them, making them much easier to find and remove. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No major uncited passages or tables. Source reliability handled at 2b. Pass 2a. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I think source review here will be tricky. Can you make a case for Doctor Who News (doctorwhonews.net) being a reliable source? Can you make a case for Doctor Who Information Network (dwin.org) being a reliable source? For current cites #41-43 (citing the episodes), I'm not sure of the proper way to cite a work of fiction directly for plot elements, so I'll check that and see what the applicable policy is. What's the case for shannonsullivan being a reliable source? Appears to be the personal website of a superfan. I'm skeptical about all of the DVD release date cites, especially the ones tagged as dead. Is this information not available from the BBC somewhere? Resellers may or may not have accurate information. Can you make a case for WhatCulture being a reliable source? Can you make a case for David Tennant News being a reliable source? How about Blogtor Who? Seems unlikely to be reliable. The last source (BBC soundtrack) has a good archive link, but the primary URL leads to a generic redirected page. Please see if you can find an updated non-archive link if possible, or mark the primary URL as dead. This is worth checking for a lot of the older sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig flags one issue, but the source acknowledges lifting from Wikipedia, so no copyvio problem there (but worth checking for circular citation). Hold for manual spotcheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use image, one classic CC2.0 image - no issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Any very minor tweak to second caption can be handled in prose review. I think this image from Piper's page could be added to this article. I have added it under casting, I'm not sure about the caption but I think the one I chose is good. Pass, image added. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one! Full disclosure: I have edited this article thrice (twice to add maintenance templates, once a procedural revert). I have plenty of experience with Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia, so I'm looking forward to reviewing this one. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Following the special, a regular series of thirteen episodes was broadcast, starting with "New Earth" on 15 April 2006. → A regular series of thirteen episodes was broadcast weekly in 2006, starting with "New Earth" on 15 April and concluding with "Doomsday" on 8 July.  Done
• 13 TARDISODEs → a series of thirteen mini-episodes called Tardisodes or something similar  Done
• He continues to travel → The Doctor continues to travel  Done
• Consider rephrasing these two sentences to follow either the character (actor) or actor as character format, as the mention of Coduri as Jackie feels incongruous  Done
• to see how well the show could do → to determine the show's performance  Done
• Most of the final two sentences are unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article  Done
• The lead requires expansion to summarise the article's content per MOS:LEAD, including the production and reception sections—see season 2 and series 5 for examples  Done

Episodes

• newly-regenerated → newly regenerated per MOS:HYPHEN  Done
• First sentence mentions "Rose" thrice; consider rephrasing  Done
• lured them here → lured them there  Done
• teleported on their ship → teleported onto their ship  Done
• Rose, Mickey, and Jackie drag...—this sentence could be shortened rephrased to avoid repetition, The Sycorax detect the TARDIS and transport it to their ship, with Rose, Mickey, and the Doctor inside.  Done
• go to New Earth → travel to New Earth  Done
• Footnote doesn't need a full stop  Done
• go to Scotland → arrive in Scotland  Done
• investigative journalist and the Doctor's former companion Sarah Jane Smith → investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith, the Doctor's former companion,  Done
• She and her robotic dog...—this sentence is 60 words long and should probably be trimmed  Done
• the ship; the ship → the ship; it  Done
• Surely Reinette's death is worth mentioning here, if only briefly?  Done
• A problem—clarify what the problem is (e.g., A problem with the TARDIS)  Done
• most of humanity wears EarPods that feed information directly into the wearer's brain and Rose's father Pete is still alive—consider swapping these two points to mention Pete first  Done
• Unlink Jake Simmonds  Done
• the parallel universe Jackie's birthday party—this reads a bit awkwardly; consider introducing Jackie earlier instead (perhaps alongside Pete) to avoid confusion
  • Alternatively, since the parallel Jackie is never mentioned again, consider removing her altogether—just mention the birthday party on its own  Done
• the Doctor, Rose and Pete → the Doctor, Rose, and Pete  Done
• televisions and hopefully the upcoming coronation → televisions – and intends to use the upcoming coronation –  Done
• In discovery of this the Doctor → In discovery of this, the Doctor  Done
• who are there on → who are on  Done
• Probably not worth introducing Flane since he's never mentioned again  Done
• The Doctor discovers he has survived the crash → The Doctor survives the crash  Done
• one of the group's meetings → a meeting  Done
• return to the meeting room to retrieve Ursula's phone. There Kennedy reveals → return to the meeting room, where Kennedy reveals  Done
• paving slab—pipe link Pavers (flooring)  Done
• Unlink Isolus  Done
• Isolus' pod → Isolus's pod  Done
• Unlink Cult of Skaro  Done
• Italicise Doctor Who  Done
• TARDISODEs → Tardisodes  Done

Casting

• This section needs some work. Right now, it's basically a list of guest stars. I'd really like to see some more specific information about the casting.
  • Any more information about David Tennant's auditioning/casting?  Done
  • Anything about Piper, Clarke, and Coduri deciding to return?
  • There's almost certainly information about Sladen's return, and possibly Leeson's  Done

This was done a while ago

• • It's fine to list some guest stars, but with 80% links, that final paragraph is a bit excessive—probably best to stick to the stars who were/are considered notable by reliable secondary sources  Done

Begun trimming section

• Image caption should be rephrased—why is Piper appearing in series 1 important?  Done
  • It also needs a reference  Done

Production

Development

• Recording for the Christmas special...—this information belongs in § Filming  Done
• Image caption needs a full stop and a reference  Done

Writing

• The first paragraph is almost completely unsourced, besides the info about Stephen Fry and the Earth setting
• First sentence is a bit long—I don't think we need the writers' résumé unless they are otherwise relevant to their work on the series  Done
• Probably a good idea to introduce Davies's role as head writer/executive producer earlier in the paragraph  Done
• Previous writers → Returning writers  Done
• Russell T. Davies hired Matthew Graham to write Fear Her. → Davies hired Graham.  Done
• The sentences about producers and directors don't fit here; this section is about writing  Done
• Is there any information about the writing of the story arc? Currently the article just recaps its on-screen events without any real world relevance
• The third paragraph should be trimmed and likely merged with the second—it's basically just expanding on the second paragraph's last sentence  Done
• Like Casting as aforementioned, this section needs some more information about the writing itself, and insight into the writers' minds. Series 1 and series 5 are great examples of this

Music

• Wales, and were orchestrated → Wales and orchestrated  Done
• I would really like to see this section expanded as well, though I understand it's unlikely
  • In that case, it might be worth just merging it with § Development instead
    • Merged with Soundtrack  Done

Filming

• The reference does not support the table at all—I'm afraid it's completely unsourced  Done
• The section also needs significant expansion beyond the table: production dates, locations, directors, notable information about the production, etc.  Done

Release

• Any information about the series' promotion—trailers, screenings, etc.?

Unfortunatly nothing still live popped up.

This ref has a decent amount per episode (e.g., pp. 20–21 for "The Christmas Invasion", 28–29 for "New Earth", 35 for "Tooth and Claw"). Just be cautious to avoid proseline or excessive detail. ☔

Broadcast

• Any notable foreign broadcasters to include here, à la series 1 or 5? We don't want to become excessive, but surely there are some worthy of noting  Done

Couldnt find anything not marking not done as mabye something will pop up.

Something popped up

• TARDISODEs → Tardisodes  Done

Home media

• A paragraph might be useful here, briefly detailing the home media releases and perhaps some notable special features (dependent on the references)  Done

In print

• This should probably be made a subsection of § Release  Done

Reception

• Is there a reason this article omits a "Ratings" section?

Lotz is working on a ratings table in a sandbox. I have added a little bit of prose. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Critical reception

• First sentence is unnecessary and unsourced  Done
• Outlets should be italicised—e.g., Screen Rant, CBR  Done
• The Video games WikiProject considers Looper unreliable—is there a reason it should be considered differently here?
  • The footnote is also completely unnecessary and adds nothing of substance  Done Removed
• This has the makings of a good section but it needs some work—what in particular did critics like/dislike about this series and its episodes? Probably the best way to present this information is to group per element of critique: one paragraph for performances, one for writing, one for music, etc.  Done

Awards and nominations

• The "Nominee(s)" column needs to be sorted per surname—e.g., the first row should read David Tennant... (or use {{sort}} instead)  Done
• RTS Television Awards → Royal Television Society Programme Awards, and link  Done
• BAFTA TV Awards → British Academy Television Awards  Done
• VES Awards → Visual Effects Society Awards  Done
• Outstanding Performance by an Animated Character in a Live Action Broadcast Program, Commercial, or Music Video—pipe link Visual Effects Society Award for Outstanding Animated Character in an Episode or Real-Time Project  Done

Soundtrack

• This should probably be made a subsection of § Release as well  Not done Feel as it holds enough to justify itself .

It's not about "justify[ing] itself" though; it's just about the most appropriate location. MOS:TVPRODUCTION recommends that this section be placed within § Production, so I think there or § Release is the most appropriate. ☔

 Done

• Infobox should be moved to the top of the section  Done
• In the infobox, Ben Foster should not be listed as a producer  Done
• first series, second series and → first series, second series, and  Done
• The entire second paragraph is unsourced—none of it is mentioned in the refs provided  Done

Replaced first ref second ref is confirmed under "Second & Third Helpings"

References and images

• This magazine should come in handy for some additions as mentioned above
• In addition to below, I've done some spot checking in the relevant sections above
• From this revision:
  • Ref 1: I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Doctor Who News replaced here—perhaps with the magazine I linked above? (It could be added to a new "Bibliography" section with page numbers referenced using {{sfn}}, like this.)
    • I've finally had a chance to look at the magazine due to network restrictions blocking archive.org. So not all of the viewers seem to be listed, but it is a good source. Hopefully this is the final hurdal holding me back from finishing the review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 3: I generally prefer linking publishers (in this case, BARB) but it's inconsistent with the rest of the refs here  Done
  • Ref 10, 14, 35, 38, 86, 90: remove Entertainment |  Done
  • Ref 11 and 32: remove Press Office –  Done
  • Ref 18: author is Lewis Knight  Done
  • Ref 39: remove – Doctor Who News – Cult  Done
  • Ref 39: Digital Spy should be in |website= or |work=  Done
  • Ref 39: author is Joanne Oatts  Done
  • Ref 42 and 75: ScreenRant → Screen Rant  Done
  • Ref 53 and 55 are dead and need to be replaced  Done only 55
  • Ref 53, 55, 66: www.ezydvd.com.au → EzyDVD  Done
  • Ref 57, 59, 61: www.fishpond.com.au → Fishpond  Done
  • Ref 65: www.jbhifi.com.au → JB Hi-Fi  Done
  • Ref 73 and 95 are inconsistent with the other Amazon refs  Done
  • Ref 80 and 81: remove UK | Wales |  Done
  • Ref 85 and 93: IMDb is unreliable  Done

    Replaced ref 85 but not 95 as I haven't find a replacement yet. Ref 95 cu

  • Ref 92: replace |author= with |last= and |first=  Done
  • Ref 92: TV Squad should be in |website= or |work=  Done
  • Ref 97 should be formatted properly using {{Cite web}}  Done
  • Ref 98: remove BBC – Doctor Who – News –  Done
• Consider adding alternative text to all images  Done

Result

There's a lot to unpack here. I still think there's quite a bit of work to be done before this article qualifies for GA—the § Production and § Reception sections in particular need some significant expansion per WP:GA?#3—but if you're willing to put in considerable work, then I'm willing to see this review through to the end. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: Thanks for all of your work on the article so far; it's definitely in better shape than before. There appears to have been a bit of a hiatus—do either of you intend to continue addressing the points above? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm trying to find a replacement for ref 93 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will continue this review soon, when I have more time. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So it appear that some content can't be sourced are we at the point that we should remove some content. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What content are you having trouble finding sources for? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The SFX Awardse . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they can be found in SFX issue 156. That being said, they appear to be reader-voted, so their notability is questionable anyway; I'll leave this to you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem is I cant find a way to access the issue. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the only way is to buy the magazine, unless you're able to get in contact with someone who has a copy and is willing to scan the pages (e.g., a reseller, or someone on social media). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

So given the availability of the issue and the possibility of them being crowded sourced should it be removed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The availability itself isn't an issue—offline or costly sources are perfectly appropriate on Wikipedia—but the fact that it's entirely reader-voted (as opposed to a panel/jury of industry professionals) makes me question its importance. The choice is yours. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Given I don't know the information about it to properly cite it, I worry of potention copyvio, i'd feel better having it removed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio isn't an issue here at all. We could cite the magazine, but then we're faced with failed verification since none of us have access. I'm fine with its removal. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the soundtrack to the transcluded version, as there's no idea to have hardcopies of identical prose and infoboxes on two articles given that they concern the same topic; however, I've changed the transclusion tags to conform the with point Infobox should be moved to the top of the section. Hope that's good. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that transclusion makes the most sense here. Thanks for addressing the infobox placement! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: This review has been open for more than 6 weeks (far longer than the standard 1), and while the article is certainly in better shape than it was, there's still much to be done and not a lot of activity. Unless you can commit to making these changes over the next week or so, I may have to fail the review and ask that you renominate after addressing the article's problems. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I believe I can. I just finished sourcing the table so that's something. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I will pitch in when I am available. However, if we can't get the article to good status by next week, and it fails, I will still continue to address the points above, when I am less busy. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'll have spotty availability over the next ten days or so, so I'm happy to reassess then. I'll still be available for occasional comments, so don't hesitate to ask for anything. I look forward to seeing the rest of your changes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Second pass

In light of the improvements made to the article, I'm going to take a second pass and leave all of my remaining comments here. Ref numbers based on this revision.

Casting

• The first two paragraphs seem short (and related) enough to combine  Done
• Ref 18 seems completely unnecessary  Done
• Noel Clarke should likely be moved to "Guest stars"; he wasn't a series lead  Done
• Is there a source for Coduri's return? I don't have access to refs 21 and 22, but the titles don't suggest she is mentioned there.  Done
• Refs 27, 35, and 36 don't mention the episode names  Done
• Clarify that Collins turned down a companion role back in the 60s  Done

  Someone removed it.

Production

• Refs 47 and 49 don't specify that Harper directed for this series; consider using Pixley 2006, p. 54  Done
  • Maintained the original sources for the classic series detail. Added a pixely ref.
• Refs 46 and 47 don't specify this series for Lyn and Strong either  Done
• Episode 11 → the eleventh episode  Done
• In consequence, Davies hired → Davies consequently hired  Done
• § Writing could use more expansion per my comment above, though I'm sure this is easier said than done
• Same with § Filming. Series 5 does this really well, briefly outlining each production block with major dates and locations. We don't want excessive details, but consider some expansion here

Release

• Per above, a "Promotion" section would be good if possible—nothing too excessive, just some information about major trailers, screenings, etc.

Reception

• § Ratings needs some expansion—the ratings table looks great, but some more prose would be good too, à la series 5 and series 6
• This comment above was marked as complete but it isn't—§ Critical reception still needs a major overhaul. WP:CRS should provide some useful tips

I'm afraid there's still a bit of work to be done, but if you're willing to work through it, I'm willing to keep this review open longer. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing your work. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lotsw73: how soon before you can get the ratings table done? I'll focas on sorting out the references and adding a bit more on filming.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OlifanofmrTennant: I will try to get it done by next week... I'm afraid I'll have to use Doctor Who News as a major source in the table, just as the Series 5 and Series 6 article do in their ratings tables. Lotsw73 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lotsw73: Thats alright just dont overuse it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: I dont want to mark them off as done but I think I've sorted out the Reception section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: That's a great start, but I'd love a bit more expansion if possible. Perhaps consider one paragraph on narrative aspects (acting, writing) and one on production elements (visual effects, production design, cinematography, music, etc.). True Detective season 1 is one of the best examples of this section, but something simpler would be suitable here. Let me know your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Rhain How about the ratings ? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The table looks good, though I can't spot any source for the overnight ratings. The prose is a good start, but I'd love to see some expansion if possible—comparison with the previous series, more discussion about specific ratings and the AI, anything else about foreign ratings. This is all dependent on sourcing, though—just do the best you can. Series 5 has the best example of this section, but series 1 is good too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lotsw73: Could you finish off the prose for Ratings? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will take a look and try to expand that section. Lotsw73 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I'll summarise any outstanding comments per section (with a couple new ones) to make this easier to track:

• § Casting—any information on why Piper returned for series 2, her thoughts on working with Tennant, or her thoughts on departing?  Done
• § Writing per above
• § Filming per above  Done
• § Broadcast—it achieved poor ratings isn't explicitly verified by the source; consider rephrasing or finding a different ref  Done
• § Promotion per above
• § Ratings per above and discussion  Done
• § Critical reception per above and discussion

As always, please let me know if you have questions or concerns. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks for this update! Those sections look great—I only have a few notes before § Filming and § Ratings are locked in:

• Would it be possible to have a little bit more detail about filming dates and production blocks? I don't want excessive detail like "New Earth" was filmed between 1 August and 3 November 2005. "Tooth and Claw" was filmed between 26 September and 27 October 2005., but, if possible, consider finding a way to add general dates/months for each production block (while avoiding proseline).
• The US release of the series struggled with ratings isn't explicitly stated by the reference. Considering finding additional sources or rephrasing.
• I still can't see a reference verifying the overnight ratings for episodes 2–12.

– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: I'm afraid I've somewhat lost interest in pursuing this GA as it seems Lotsw has. I wont speak for them, but the last Lotsw edit was on the 11th. I might revist this someday, I might not. But currently I have little intrest in continuing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I will have to agree with @OlifanofmrTennant. Sorry to let anyone down, but I have become too busy with other projects, and the outside world, to properly work on this review. However, I may return to this nomination in the near future and address the concerns listed above. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: Thanks for the update. I appreciate your transparency, and understand your changed priorities; I'm sure my laundry list of comments did little to inspire any motivation. That being said, I believe the article is in much better shape than when nominated—only a short (though not insignificant) list of comments remains—and should have a much smoother path to GA upon its next nomination. Until then, please feel free to give me a shout if you would like any feedback or assistance—I would be happy to help in whatever way I can (including as a reviewer again). I look forward to seeing more of your great work in future. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Prepping for GAN

I have been working on the article, and seeing that the last nomination review only had a few issues remaining by the end, I believe I might be able to fix them. Putting it out there, in case anyone might like to help in adding to promotion, writing or critical reception; or in helping nominate it, as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not entirely familiar with it. Happy to hear any thoughts on it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As the most recent GA reviewer, I just want to clarify that the remaining issues, while few in number, were still quite significant. In particular, I believe § Writing could benefit from some additional information, and § Promotion needs significant expansion. While it's nice to see § Critical reception has been expanded (though I've since reverted per WP:CLOP), it still needs some work: instead of simply summarising individual reviews across two or three paragraphs, it should be organised by thematic element to discuss the overall response (as mentioned). Check out WP:CRS for specific advice.

The article is in better shape than it was six months ago, but I still think it needs some fairly significant work before another successful GA nomination. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know how close we were to supposed to make the text to the review, thanks for linking to WP:CRS, I'll make the changes. Will expand be expanding the writing and promotion section in a few days' time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Congrats on the promotion! Glad to see so many improvements made to the article. If I could suggest one more: I think the § Critical reception section would benefit from more episode reviews. In the second and third paragraphs, nine of the ten sentences are about the two-part finale; only the final sentence addresses the series generally. Obviously the finale is significant, but it would be good to see other episodes incorporated, especially since the first paragraph already mentions the middling response to "Fear Her". Just my 2¢—congrats again! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find much about the series in itself, so I used the reviews for the finale, and kept the focus on parts that could relate to the entire series. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an unfortunate lack of reviews for the series overall, but it would be beneficial to have some comments about other episodes too—I'm sure there's more about the performances, characters, and writing in other reviews (I'm especially thinking about "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "The Satan Pit" for praise, possibly "Love & Monsters" and "Fear Her" for criticism). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll use these articles to add that when I get the time. Thanks for the suggestion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing the table from #Ratings

Most of the data in the table is missing, and even the data present is not sourced, neither now, nor in the previous sources, and it feels likely that they were only added because they are present from series 4 on; so I am thinking of replacing it with a graph instead, like series 1. Putting it out there to prevent any future edit warring. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content is determinantal to this encyclopedia. Find alternate sources to replace it with. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any alternate sources. Removal of data is detrimental, but so is incomplete and unsourced data. The Appreciation Index is already present in the episode list, so we aren't losing that. I can add a graph for the rank of the episodes' viwers, that's the only content that was truly removed: it was complete and sourced. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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. Reconrabbit 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)

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

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

@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)

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. Reconrabbit 13:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)