Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA4

GA Review

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

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

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

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

Prose

Lead

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

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

Reception

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]
[29] Y though it doesn't explicitly state K9 was voiced by John Leeson in "School Reunion".

Scope

Broad:
Narrow:

Stability

Neutrality:
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)[reply]