Talk:Doctor Who/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this. Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Doctor Who, I look forward to reading your review thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much progress on this, but I just looked at the article (since the 50th anniversary is a little over a month away). If you want, I'm happy to take over the GA review, as I think at the very least a DYK on this on 23 November is a very worthwhile goal. A quick look through reveals the following issues :


 * The lead pays too much attention to the swap between Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi. I would expect in time for David Tennant's name to drop off the lead, and for Smith to follow.
 * I looked closer into this and...William Hartnell isn't even mentioned in the lead. Glimmer721  talk  02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Numerous sentences (mostly at the end of paragraphs) are not cited to reliable sources. The "episodes" section contains several completely unsourced paragraphs.


 * Content in the "History" and "Episodes" sections seems to be duplicated - for example, the explanation that the show was supposed to be educational and not contain "bug eyed monsters".


 * The article has one verification failed tag and one citation needed tag.
 * I also spot some very small paragraphs and many paragraphs/sentences without references (see "episodes", for instance). Glimmer721  talk  02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, all of the above issues need to be resolved before this article can meet the GA criteria. I can carry on reviewing the article in more depth if that's of any help. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of quick comments as well. This article certainly has a lot of potential - and there have been so many books written about the programme's history (take, for instance, which very recently has a second edition) and analyzing it; often, things have happened because of production reasons, and the whole show is broken up into many eras and many have their reason for existing (exploring what the show can do, capitalizing on monster popularity, capitalizing on Earth-bound stories to save the show from cancellation, dialing back the horror, etc). There is History of Doctor Who, but this article needs a brief overview of everything production-wise instead of focusing, as it seems, on the beginning and the revived series. Overall, this article often reads like many pieces of information stitched together over the years, which can make it hard to read and find information. There is a large amount of information on the characters (do we need a separate sections on meetings between the Doctor in this article?) and "this happened then" things, rather than why they happened. For example, there are reasons behind the companions and their roles in the show, which have changed over time, and that may be better for an overview article than a list of notable companions (without understanding why they are notable). Also, there is notably not a reception section, which would admittedly require a lot of research to make a concise overview of the entire 50-year history: the pluses and minuses to everything. A themes or genre section would also be interesting and probably has received coverage (now I'm just brainstorming, sorry). This article is a good start, but it's got a long way to go and I honestly don't believe it is at its best yet. It is no doubt intimidating and I salute anyone who is willing to overhaul this article into something that matches the quality articles being produced today, and would help with any advice and research to the best of my abilities. It could be a project-wide task if many are willing to pool resources. Glimmer721  talk  02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no progress on this for over a month, I am going to boldly close the review, though Glimmer721 makes excellent points and Kelvin 101 should carry on improving the article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)