Talk:Space Babies/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 06:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mr Sitcom (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article in the coming days. Although I am a WikiProject Doctor Who member, I have not edited this article before and am impartial to its successful or unsuccessful nomination. Mr Sitcom (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

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.
	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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead

Link science fiction television to science fiction on television Done
Remove the dot (".") after the "T" in Russell T. Davies Done
A broadcast on BBC One followed later in the day. → A broadcast on BBC One followed later in the day on 11 May Done
The episode picks up immediately after the events of "The Church on Ruby Road", and follows an alien time traveller known as the Doctor (Ncuti Gatwa) and Ruby Sunday (Millie Gibson) as they travel to a space station and find a baby farm. The babies are under threat by a creature dubbed the Bogeyman. → The episode, which takes place immediately after the events of "The Church on Ruby Road", follows an alien time traveller known as the Doctor (Ncuti Gatwa) and his companion Ruby Sunday (Millie Gibson), as they travel to a space station and discover a baby farm. Together, they learn that the babies are under threat by a creature dubbed "the Bogeyman". Done
Add a comma after Davies wrote "Space Babies" as a soft reboot Done

Plot

The plot, though quite well-written, could do with some copyediting Done

Production

Development

Link "Bogeyman" Done
Davies first run → Davies's first run Done
He also went on to note that Disney did not make any notes on the episode, particularly in relation to the babies brandishing flamethrowers. → He also explained that there were "no Disney notes" in the episode, particularly in relation to babies brandishing flamethrowers, noting that "they're just as much up for this adventure the rest of us are". Done

Filming

The read through for "Space Babies" took place on 1 March 2023. → The read-through for "Space Babies" took place on 1 March 2023, at Wolf Studios Wales, Cardiff. Done
It was directed by Julie Anne Robinson. → The episode was directed by Julie Anne Robinson. Add [6] citation to the end of this statement Done
The episode was produced in the series third block alongside the third episode "Boom" in March and April 2023. → It was produced in the series's third block alongside the third episode "Boom" in March and April 2023. Done
Remove the CultBox source [7] Done
For Ruby's prehistoric prosthetic, the production team attempted to create something similar to the Silurians but were instructed by Davies to make it appear cute. → For Ruby's prehistoric prosthetic, the production team attempted to create something similar to the Silurians but were instructed by Davies to make the prosthetic appear cute. Done

Casting

[15]: Replace this source with the Radio Times one [12]. Done

Broadcast and reception

Broadcast

followed by a broadcast on BBC One later in the day. → followed by a broadcast on BBC One at 6:20 pm. Add this citation (archived) to the end of the new sentence. Done
[23]: Is there a better source that specifically refers to the airdates of this episode, instead of a general statement at the end of the article? Done
The episode is the first non-special to air since the thirteenth series finale "The Vanquishers" (2021).[26] The source does not appear to support this claim. Done
- It provides a list of episodes that have aired. The most recent one not labeled special was The Vanquishers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - All good, I see it now. Mr Sitcom (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disney also handled → Disney+ handled Done

Ratings

Louise Griffin from Radio Times attributed the low ratings to the episodes launch on BBC iPlayer nearly 20 hours previously. → Louise Griffin from Radio Times attributed the low ratings to the episode's launch on BBC iPlayer nearly twenty hours previously. Done

Critical reception

ultimately, not making sense." → ultimately, not making sense". Done
and noted the message as an allegory about the rollback of abortion rights in the US to be "accompanied by the deafening scrape of a crowbar". → and noted that the episode's allegory about the rollback of abortion rights in the United States was "accompanied by the deafening scrape of a crowbar". Done
stating it felt "a tad too lightweight and kitsch" and felt it was too similar to "The Church on Ruby Road". → stating that the episode felt "a tad too lightweight and kitsch" and was too similar to "The Church on Ruby Road". Done
He also has mixed feelings on the plot, particularly calling the Boogeyman's change of character as "so jarringly sudden", particularly how the babies, initially terrified of it before, come to care for it. → He also had mixed feelings on the plot, particularly with regards to the Boogeyman's change of character, which he believed to be "so jarringly sudden" that he wondered whether a scene was missing. Done
[19]: Change inews.co.uk simply to i, as it was then known Done
Ed Power felt that it had → Ed Power felt that the episode had Done
Den of Geek writer Stefan Mohamed criticised the episodes CGI. He also praised how the episode followed up on the "Timeless Child" plot line. → Den of Geek writer Stefan Mohamed praised the way in which the episode followed up on the "Timeless Child" plotline, but was critical of the episode's CGI effects. Done
Inverse's Bui Tran-Hoai thought the episode was a "mixed bag", describing it as "an outrageously goofy sci-fi adventure involving talking babies and a terrifying creature that stalks an abandoned space station" that "spends much of the runtime establishing who the Doctor is and what he does, leaving longtime fans to basically twiddle their thumbs as they wait for the good stuff". → Inverse's Bui Tran-Hoai believed the episode to be a "mixed bag", describing it as "an outrageously goofy sci-fi adventure" that spends too long establishing the Doctor Who premise to its new Disney+ viewers, leaving long-term fans to "twiddle their thumbs as they wait for the good stuff". Done
Reviewing the episode Radio Times, Morgan Jeffery believed the story to be simple, but saying that it should please both new and returning viewers. → Reviewing the episode for the Radio Times, Morgan Jeffery believed the story to be simple, but felt that it should nonetheless please both new and returning viewers. Done
Jennifer Zahn with Vulture noted an allegory between the thematic element of the baby farm and the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States. She also felt the episode failed to sufficiently explain why the Doctor could not use the TARDIS to move the space station to safety, and felt it was vague what will happen to the Bogeyman and the babies when they land. She also criticised the CGI animations of the babies' facial movements. → Vulture's Jennifer Zhan noted the allegory between the thematic element of the baby farm and the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States. Zhan believed that some plot elements in the episode did not make sense, and criticised the CGI animations of the babies's facial movements. Done
Citation [33] is a review from WP:DEXERTO. Admittedly, I am not sure whether it is reliable nonetheless, so I will let you decide. Done (removed)
Emmet Asher-Perrin called the episode "intensely goofy" but praised that "the Doctor chooses to connect with the bogeyman" noting it as a better contrast to his killing the Goblin King's in "The Church on Ruby Road". → Emmet Asher-Perrin called the episode "intensely goofy". Perrin praised how the Doctor chooses to connect with the bogeyman, noting it as a better contrast to his killing the Goblin King in "The Church on Ruby Road". Not done (removed for questionable reliability)

In print

Rename this section "Home media" and add info relating to DVD/BluRay releases (see The Church on Ruby Road#Home media) Done
Firstly, this section needs updating to reflect that the novel has now been published. There are some useful citations at List of Doctor Who novelisations#Fifteenth Doctor Done
[35]: Change name from DWN 1 (Doctor Who Target Collection 2024, 2) to Doctor Who: Space Babies (Target Collection). Change Amazon.co.uk to Amazon.com Done Amazon.com is not being cited, Amazon.co.uk is
- Changed this one to the neutral Amazon, I try to avoid including .com's or co.uk's in the work field when possible TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @OlifanofmrTennant: not sure why Amazon is disputed I agree with not changing to Amazon.com, but regardless of whether it's Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk, they're both the company Amazon. This is further confirmed by the instructions at Template:Cite web which says Name of the work containing the source. The name of the work is "Amazon" not "Amazon.co.uk". The same way the work is "Radio Times" not "RadioTimes.com" or "CultBox" not "CultBox.co.uk". TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[36]: Change name from Doctor Who Space Babies to Doctor Who: Space Babies. Change Rare Waves to Rarewaves Done

General comments

Please note: All citations mentioned are taken from this revision of the article.

@Mr Sitcom: I believe that all your comments have been addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have indeed. Well done @TheDoctorWho: and @OlifanofmrTennant: on successfully nominating this well-written, in-depth article! Mr Sitcom (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]