Wikipedia:Peer review/Doctor Who/archive2

Doctor Who


I've listed this article for peer review because it has not been peer reviewed/nominated in ten years, and has significantly improved since then. I want to bring it to FA status but also want some advice first. As a Doctor Who fan myself, I struggle to be neutral when it comes to the article's quality.

Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk ) 10:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UC
A couple of thoughts with an FAC hat on. 11:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A small thing: it's considered impolite to strike others' comments - it makes it difficult to be sure of what I've seen, and gives a false impression that I've withdrawn whatever suggestion or issue it was. The usual form is to indent and reply "Done" or similar underneath. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADCITE: in general, it shouldn't be necessary to cite things in the lead, since they should be included and cited in the body text.
 * ✅To an extent I have done this I have trimmed down the lead a bit.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * : I'd put this into the perfect tense ("has been listed"): we haven't shown that it's listed in the 2023 edition, for example, and the reference to iTunes traffic feels rather dated now.
 * ✅Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest explaining what a Time Lord is under "premise".
 * Chronologically, it seems odd to start with the show's first airing, and then step backwards to talk about its concept and planning.
 * Per MOS:', "of the series" is written "series's", but some style guides would prefer "of the series" written out in full.
 * ✅Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A few areas seem light on citations: this is particularly noticeable in the "Missing Episodes" section. I would always cite at the end of a paragraph, even if that same citation will be doubled in the next one.
 * Image captions that contain factual claims should be cited.
 * The show should always be named in italics as Doctor Who.
 * There's a lot of Further Reading mentioned. My general view is that FAs rarely have room for such a section: if the sources mentioned there have anything useful to say that isn't already in the article, they should be cited and so moved to the bibliography: if they don't, they don't offer the reader very much and should be removed. I did notice, reading the article, that there seems to be very little on the academic reception of the series: perhaps two birds could be killed with one stone here?
 * The formatting of titles in references and Further Reading is quite inconsistent.
 * Nit-picks:
 * : should be "Icons of Science Fiction", I think.
 * : could be trimmed considerably to something like "Map of countries that have broadcast Doctor Who.