Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA3

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

Nominator: 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 ( to maintenance templates,  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. ✅
 * 13 TARDISODEs → a series of thirteen mini-episodes called Tardisodes or something similar ✅
 * He continues to travel → The Doctor continues to travel ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * to see how well the show could do → to determine the show's performance ✅
 * Most of the final two sentences are unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article ✅
 * 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 ✅

Episodes

 * newly-regenerated → newly regenerated per MOS:HYPHEN ✅
 * First sentence mentions "Rose" thrice; consider rephrasing ✅
 * lured them here → lured them there ✅
 * teleported on their ship → teleported onto their ship ✅
 * 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. ✅
 * go to New Earth → travel to New Earth ✅
 * Footnote doesn't need a full stop ✅
 * go to Scotland → arrive in Scotland ✅
 * investigative journalist and the Doctor's former companion Sarah Jane Smith → investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith, the Doctor's former companion, ✅
 * She and her robotic dog...—this sentence is 60 words long and should probably be trimmed ✅
 * the ship; the ship → the ship; it ✅
 * Surely Reinette's death is worth mentioning here, if only briefly? ✅
 * A problem—clarify what the problem is (e.g., A problem with the TARDIS) ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Unlink Jake Simmonds ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * the Doctor, Rose and Pete → the Doctor, Rose, and Pete ✅
 * televisions and hopefully the upcoming coronation → televisions – and intends to use the upcoming coronation – ✅
 * In discovery of this the Doctor → In discovery of this, the Doctor ✅
 * who are there on → who are on ✅
 * Probably not worth introducing Flane since he's never mentioned again ✅
 * The Doctor discovers he has survived the crash → The Doctor survives the crash ✅
 * one of the group's meetings → a meeting ✅
 * return to the meeting room to retrieve Ursula's phone. There Kennedy reveals → return to the meeting room, where Kennedy reveals ✅
 * paving slab—pipe link Pavers (flooring) ✅
 * Unlink Isolus ✅
 * Isolus' pod → Isolus's pod ✅
 * Unlink Cult of Skaro ✅
 * Italicise Doctor Who ✅
 * TARDISODEs → Tardisodes ✅

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? ✅
 * Anything about Piper, Clarke, and Coduri deciding to return?
 * There's almost certainly information about Sladen's return, and possibly Leeson's ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Begun trimming section


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

Production

 * Development
 * Recording for the Christmas special...—this information belongs in § Filming ✅
 * Image caption needs a full stop and a reference ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Probably a good idea to introduce Davies's role as head writer/executive producer earlier in the paragraph ✅
 * Previous writers → Returning writers ✅
 * Russell T. Davies hired Matthew Graham to write Fear Her. → Davies hired Graham. ✅
 * The sentences about producers and directors don't fit here; this section is about writing ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Music
 * Wales, and were orchestrated → Wales and orchestrated ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Filming
 * The reference does not support the table at all—I'm afraid it's completely unsourced ✅
 * The section also needs significant expansion beyond the table: production dates, locations, directors, notable information about the production, etc. ✅
 * The section also needs significant expansion beyond the table: production dates, locations, directors, notable information about the production, etc. ✅

Release

 * 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. ☔
 * 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 ✅
 * Couldnt find anything not marking not done as mabye something will pop up.
 * Something popped up


 * TARDISODEs → Tardisodes ✅
 * Home media
 * A paragraph might be useful here, briefly detailing the home media releases and perhaps some notable special features (dependent on the references) ✅

In print

 * This should probably be made a subsection of § Release ✅

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 ✅
 * Outlets should be italicised—e.g., Screen Rant, CBR ✅
 * 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 ✅ Removed
 * 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) ✅
 * RTS Television Awards → Royal Television Society Programme Awards, and link ✅
 * BAFTA TV Awards → British Academy Television Awards ✅
 * VES Awards → Visual Effects Society Awards ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * 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 ✅

Soundtrack

 * This should probably be made a subsection of § Release as well ❌ 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. ☔


 * Infobox should be moved to the top of the section ✅
 * In the infobox, Ben Foster should not be listed as a producer ✅
 * first series, second series and → first series, second series, and ✅
 * The entire second paragraph is unsourced—none of it is mentioned in the refs provided ✅
 * Replaced first ref second ref is confirmed under "Second & Third Helpings"

References and images

 * 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 ✅
 * Ref 10, 14, 35, 38, 86, 90: remove Entertainment ✅
 * Ref 11 and 32: remove Press Office – ✅
 * Ref 18: author is Lewis Knight ✅
 * Ref 39: remove – Doctor Who News – Cult ✅
 * Ref 39: Digital Spy should be in website or work ✅
 * Ref 39: author is Joanne Oatts ✅
 * Ref 42 and 75: ScreenRant → Screen Rant ✅
 * Ref 53 and 55 are dead and need to be replaced ✅ only 55
 * Ref 53, 55, 66: www.ezydvd.com.au → EzyDVD ✅
 * Ref 57, 59, 61: www.fishpond.com.au → Fishpond ✅
 * Ref 65: www.jbhifi.com.au → JB Hi-Fi ✅
 * Ref 73 and 95 are inconsistent with the other Amazon refs ✅
 * Ref 80 and 81: remove UK ✅
 * Ref 85 and 93: IMDb is unreliable ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Ref 92: TV Squad should be in website or work ✅
 * Ref 97 should be formatted properly using Cite web ✅
 * Ref 98: remove BBC – Doctor Who – News – ✅
 * Consider adding alternative text to all images ✅
 * Consider adding alternative text to all images ✅

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?—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)
 * 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)

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 ✅
 * Ref 18 seems completely unnecessary ✅
 * Noel Clarke should likely be moved to "Guest stars"; he wasn't a series lead ✅
 * 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. ✅
 * Refs 27, 35, and 36 don't mention the episode names ✅
 * Clarify that Collins turned down a companion role back in the 60s ✅
 * Someone removed it.
 * Production
 * Refs 47 and 49 don't specify that Harper directed for this series; consider using Pixley 2006, p. 54 ✅
 * 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 ✅
 * Episode 11 → the eleventh episode ✅
 * In consequence, Davies hired → Davies consequently hired ✅
 * § Writing could use more expansion per my comment above, though I'm sure this is easier said than done


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


 * Reception
 * 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
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Thats alright just dont overuse it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's a great start, but Let me know your thoughts. –  Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 –  Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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: As always, please let me know if you have questions or concerns. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 09:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * § Casting—any information on why Piper returned for series 2, her thoughts on working with Tennant, or her thoughts on departing? ✅
 * § Writing per above
 * § Filming per above ✅
 * § Broadcast—it achieved poor ratings isn't explicitly verified by the source; consider rephrasing or finding a different ref ✅
 * § Promotion per above
 * § Ratings per above and discussion ✅
 * § Critical reception per above and discussion

Thanks for this update! Those sections look great—I only have a few notes before § Filming and § Ratings are locked in: – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)