Talk:Doctor Who specials (2023)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be preforming this review I hope it passes.

Immediate failure

1. It's pretty close to reaching all five criteria.
2. [1] Earwig Doesnt flag anything just a few quotes which have to be verbatim.
3. No maintenance tags.
4. Page is currently stable, no persistent vandalism.
5. This is the first GA review ✓ Pass

Good Article

Well-written

There has been a recently added maintence tag to the reception section. I innitallied overlooked this, but now I see this issue the section is two sentence long and should be expanded on.

Article has a problem with MOS:DUPLINK.

Done

~~:As the specials were released onto Disney+ around the same time as they were on BBC One shouldnt Disney Plus be listed in the infobox.~~

Verifiable

What is your case on Doctor Who News?

What is your case on Cult Box?

Both of them seem to be fansites. There are a few replacements for the information they provide.

I have randomly selected sources 67, 52 and 125 for a spot check. (based on this revision [2])

Spotchecks

REF 67

Claim:

The new logo was revealed on 25 October 2022, in conjunction with the announcement that the specials would premiere on Disney+ outside the UK and Ireland.

Source:

[3]

Proven by source

It discusss the logo and release date.

REF 52

Claim:

Due to failing health, Cribbins' role as Wilfred Mott was reduced, however, he was able to film one last appearance for the ending of "Wild Blue Yonder", his final performance before his death on 27 July 2022, one day after production for the specials wrapped.

Source:

[4]

Proven by source

It does confirm that he began filming

Backed up by other sources

It was paired with a another source. [5]

======REF 125======
Claim: The total veiwers of the specials were 7.61, 7.14, and 6.85 million.
Source:

~~[6]~~

Proven by source: You have to specificly select the timeframe you want to see but it is true Source removed I will check another

The source for destinaition Skarro is a instagram post that should be replaced by a secondary source two of which are here of these [7] [8]

REF 71

Claim:

On 7 March 2023, it was announced that Tennant, who was the main presenter of Comic Relief 2023, would appear during a sketch in the telethon in the Fourteenth Doctor's costume to promote the specials.

Source:

[9]

Proven by source

It does talk about his then upcoming role

For Destination Skaro and the bedtime story the runtime is listed. Is there a source for that?

Looking at Doctor Who TV seems to be a fansite without great credentials other than being around for a while

"Nitpick

As of [[10]] citation 33 is listed as being from bigfinish.com as opposed to be to my knowledge consistant formating isnt required for a GA its an easy fix. This is also an issue with ref 102. Those and the Penguin ones at the end are the only few with this formating

Broad in coverage

The plot summaries are all 160-180 words, all of them are under the 200 word limit set by MOS:TV.

~~:There are various sections which feel like they are just covering Doctor Who in 2023 and not specificly the specials. Could you explain the relevence of these?~~

~~"Multiplatform story" covers Dooms day, not really related to the specials~~
~~"Tales of the TARDIS" is its own series its said right in the top of the paragraph.~~

~~"Doctor Who: Unleashed" has its own page which is linked there.~~

✓ Pass

Neutral

Its seems unbiased nothing overly prasises it nor critizes it,

✓ Pass

Stable

No edit wars nor large scale arguments recently.

✓ Pass

Illustrated

The article uses three images.

The DVD box art (free use): Standered use with television articles.
Image of David Tennant and Catherine Tate (commons) The duo lead the specials so makes sense why they are there.
Image of Russle T. Davies (commons) he wrote the specicals to makes sense.

✓ Pass

OVERALL

I am going to concatenate all of my responses here, instead of replying above individually, as this is a very uniquely laid-out GA; I've never seen it before.

My position on Doctor Who News and CultBox remain the same, as you know.
This article covers the 2023 specials and the 60th anniversary as a whole, exactly how Doctor Who (2013 specials) covers the 2013 specials and the 50th anniversary as a whole, hence the inclusion of content such as Doom's Day, Tales of the TARDIS and Doctor Who: Unleashed, the latter of which was announced to be beginning with the 60th anniversary specials..

-- Alex_21_TALK 08:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second point understandable. As for the first part I do know your stance but why is it relaible other than it has been used in the past. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to pass/fail the GA nomination solely based on those two references? I'd like to know before I proceed. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend to pass/fail the review based on thosse two sites which are used multiple times. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Then are there any other concerns that need to be addressed within this article? Thanks. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want your justification for them being there Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to remove them. If they were truly unreliable, they would not have passed the GA nominations of 13 other Doctor Who season articles. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start an RFC form a clear consensus. Then I'll shut up about it and we can all be fine. Otherwise I'm going to continue the reveiw. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do continue the review. (Also, typo?) -- Alex_21_TALK 00:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Are you intending to continue adjusting the article for GA even while you're assessing the article yourself? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wernt replying Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of this review is extremely confusing, and your only major notices were a bunch of passes, the one maintenance tag, and the recommended updating of the "Destination: Skaro" source, which doesn't even correlate to the edit you made. The recommended timeline for fixes after a complete review is seven days; performing the GA edits as the reviewer based on a lack of reply within a day or two makes me curious as to the situation here. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll proceed with article fixes today. To answer your latest question, no, this is a BBC production, Disney+ simply internationally distribute the series. This differentiation should be known by an experienced Television WikiProject editor. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't talk about who produced it in the info box. Just where it released which was my concern. I understand that it's a BBC production Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per {{Infobox television season}} documentation, concerning the |network= parameter, The original network on which the season has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available. This is the widely-accepted consensus of WP:TV. -- Alex_21_TALK 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making a list of edits to fix here, as the above layout is far too confusing and spread-out to keep track of.

Reception expansion
"Destination: Skaro" sources [11] [12]
Formatting of refs 33, 102, Penguin cites [13]

Concerning the runtime of the minisodes, no, sources are not included for those, they are supported by the primary sources of the minisodes themselves, exactly the same as how the main episodes are the primary sources to support the episode titles and credits.

Also, how does this article have issues with MOS:DUPLINK? -- Alex_21_TALK 22:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the DUPLINKS question concerns multiple of the same link over the whole article, please note that DUPLINK was updated last year, and now states a link may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as [...] at the first occurrence in a section. That means, links can be repeated in different sections. -- Alex_21_TALK 11:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant I see you tagged the DUPLINK issue as done; did you take note of the above notice, showing that there was no duplicate link issue at all? -- Alex_21_TALK 21:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rhain took care of it there was a dupe link issue if be a minor one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note, I haven't forgotten about this, I will continue it as soon as possible; I've simply returned to fulltime work this week for the first time this year and will endeavour to finish this nomination in my available time. Thanks. -- Alex_21_TALK 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool I'll leave it on hold Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception expansion Doing...
"Destination: Skaro" sources Done
Formatting of refs 33, 102, Penguin cites Done

-- Alex_21_TALK 03:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be continuing/completing the reception expansion over this weekend. Thanks. -- Alex_21_TALK 08:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So given that that the slandered time for an article to be on hold is seven days and you have had 12 if you dont get this done soon the article will fail. You also haven't provided solid reasoning as to why the are allowed. I see weak reason for Doctor Who News but nothing for cult box other than "it has historically been used". I give you until the end of the day to respond or else I have to fail it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'm getting around to it; the seven days is by no means a concrete deadline. Apologies that my real-life commitments are more important. Can you please repeat your above statement? The sentence as to why the are allowed makes no gramatically sense; I cannot make sense of your comments. -- Alex_21_TALK 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let the recently added work towards the critical reception be noted. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Hi again. Thanks for passing the review. Please be sure to follow WP:GAN/I#PASS in full. Thank you. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]