Talk:Doctor Who series 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDoctor Who series 2 was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2017Good article nomineeListed
May 13, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 17, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who (series 2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Doctor Who (series 2)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No response to pings, article hasn't been worked on for around a month. Issues still remain, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the only two issues? If so, I can begin working on rectifying these issues. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Music and filming sources. Working on cast source and critical reception. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Cast sources. Critical reception remaining. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ClockC Still working on it, sorry for the delay. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any update Alex 21? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant, let me know your comments on the source issues below. I think it'll be tough to get this article to GA without resolving them, and fixing the issues might end up requiring some sizable modifications to the article, so I'll hold off on the rest of the review until the sources are settled. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the whatcultrue source as its unreliable. Doctor Who News inst a great source but from what I have seen they typically accurate, with that being said I'll look for some alternatives. I have removed the episode citations, blogtorwho and David Tennant news are both bad sources which I think should be removed however they are the only two sources with that information, shannonsullivan has been removed, and BBC soundtrack has been tagged as dead. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If an unreliable source is the only place with a piece of information you can find, the information should be removed from the article as well unfortunately. Given what you say about Doctor Who News, unless we can make a good case for its reliability, I think it and the corresponding information should be removed too. You could also try asking at WP:RSN about Doctor Who News specifically to see if we can get a consensus. I'm still seeing "David Tennant News" used (cite #96). Any luck finding alternate sources for the many DVD/home video release dates? —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found information regarding Doctor Who News. Its a sucsessor to the Outpost Gallifrey news time. Outpost Gallifrey was seen as reliable until it was shut down. They do have restriction as to who can publish an article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. that was a while ago, and I'm unconvinced by Doctor Who News' website, which suggests that most of their staff are unpaid volunteers. It's essentially a large and well established fansite, not a journalistic endeavor. However, I would recommend posting a question about this at WP:RSN - if consensus there disagrees with me, I'm happy to accept it here. Without that, though, I think it'd be tricky to get to GA relying so heavily on Doctor Who News. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened it and it seems like its not bery good and should be removed. I will be doing so now. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Whatever you can do to find reliable sources (most likely the BBC or a TV industry publication) to replace the removed information would be great! Let me know when you've finished making changes and would like me to take another look. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If content is removed due to Doctor Who News being determined as unreliable by one editor, I will happily participate in a discussion to restore the content with the same source, as it will pull this article out of sync with every related article. Have there been any cases or evidence in which the site has been unreliable? Also, concerning MOS:DUPLINK, links are allowed to be introduced in each season, so unless the duplicate links are repeated per section, then I see no issue. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was others it was put up at a notice board were others deemed in non-relaible. If you open up another post about it I would be willing to rediscuss it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21, the nominator is referring to this RSN discussion. Based on my personal judgment and the comments there, I don't think we can treat Doctor Who News as a reliable source. Other pages may or may not use it, but for GA standard, it's not suitable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that RNS discussion has not concluded, nor does it have any clear consensus. The use of this particular website as a source has paseed no less than twelve GA reviews, and is in use in 71 good articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add to the WP:RSN discussion, but I am not persuaded by the website's use in other articles. Their website describes their "news team" as volunteers. I don't see other reliable sources describing them as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as WP:RS should. I see a large and well-organized fansite, and while that's fine in some cases, it's not what I see as being at the GA standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do you intend to re-assess the other 11 season articles that all use this site and have met GA, and the 58 remaining other GA articles that use this site? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but feel free to raise them yourself at WP:GAR if you want. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or removing the information if it is supported by other sources. Even if it is decided to keep Doctor Who News. Why did you revert the additional sources being added Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oversourcing. The ratings for all 874 episodes of Doctor Who are sourced through Doctor Who News; there is no need for oversourcing. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sourcing, I see you've replaced a number of cast sources with DoctorWho.TV; overreliance upon primary sources (as DoctorWho.TV is the official BBC website for the programme) instead of secondary sources, as per Wikipedia's preference for secondary sourcing, may cause other editors to re-evaluate this GA once again. Replacing one non-consensual sourcing problem with a policy-tangent sourcing problem is not the way to go about a GA. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it becomes and issue I am sure there are a number of sources that can be used to replace them. You say all episodes are sourced by Doctor Who News, assuming there aren't sources that say the same thing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have a problem with using the producer of the TV series as a reliable source on its cast. Primary sources cause issues when they lead to WP:OR or are misinterpreted or taken out of context by editors. There's nothing interpretable about the cast of a TV show. I would appreciate if you would let the nominator and I work on the review together. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't believe there's any such rule stating that only the nominator and reviewer can contribute to a GA discussion. Are you attempting to kick me out of this? I'd typically consider that bordering on WP:PA and WP:OWN, but given that I recognize you're newer here, I'll let it slide.
Per the WP:PST policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Since this GA review began, a primary source has been added to this article twelve times. That's extensive. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the primary sources I could look for non-primary sources I'm sure their there. May I suggest that the review I put on hold until a proper discussion can happen as to the quality of doctor who News l. Also the discussion was archived so you'd have to start a new lnr Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as much a problem with the sources themselves, it is a problem with fixing an apparent unconfirmed sourcing problem with a vaster policy-borderline sourcing problem. Doctor Who News needs to be confirmed as an unreliable source first, and that needs a far greater discussion than one GA if it's already used in 71 other GA's. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the other GA reviews discuss the site? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OlifanofmrTennant - I apologize for the confusion. The fact is, that there's only one reviewer at a time, and I am the reviewer right now. While Alex 21 is trying to be helpful, I'm afraid they are simply muddling the matter by giving you contradictory advice. The GA process is based on the idea of a single reviewer assessing the article against the GA criteria, and the nominator + others making changes in response. My assessment is that Doctor Who News is not reliable and should be removed, and that using the BBC as a source for casting is absolutely fine. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put the review on hold for a day or two until the issue is resolved; we cannot have multiple "reviewers" giving advice at cross purposes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, OlifanofmrTennant, I don't know. I simply ran a search of articles that include both "doctorwhonews" and "good article" in the article (indicating the use of {{good article}}), and returned with 71 results. The contents of those GA reviews, however, is not something I've looked at individually. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21: don't be snide, it's not productive. Multiple people are welcome to contribute to a GA discussion, but there is only one reviewer at a time. If you would like to help fix issues I mention, please feel free to assist. But it's unfair to the nominator to ask them to follow your advice and my advice simultaneously, especially as we disagree. That is simply confusing. I began this review. I will be finishing the review, one way or another, and determining whether or not to pass the article as a GA. You are welcome to improve the article and fix issues I mention. But again, there is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Third editor giving contradictory advice during GA review, I have been well within my right to provide the comments that I have been, so I would recommend that you change your viewpoint here. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to act as a co-nominator, you are very welcome to do so. If we cannot come to a consensus on this source and related issues, the review will likely have to be failed, unfortunately. My opinion has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News, and it doesn't look like the WP:RSN thread is likely to come to a different consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, with regards to MOS:DUPLINK, I don't think we are referring to the same thing. Generally, a link each in the lead, the body, and any embedded lists are enough. There are issues here - to start with, both Christmas special and The Christmas Invasion are linked twice in the lead alone. As mentioned, I recommend the tool User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to identify these problems. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opened discussion at GAN talk page[edit]

Hi! I've opened a discussion at the GAN talk page, here. Please participate in the discussion there. The review is on hold until the issue is resolved. My view is that we cannot have multiple reviewers giving contradictory advice. There is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion[edit]

See some related discussion here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant, @Alex 21, as I mentioned, I'm going to give it another day, but my view has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News. Therefore, this review will likely fail, unfortunately. However, there is no reason not to make improvements, re-nominate, and try your luck with a different reviewer. @OlifanofmrTennant, thank you for your improvements thus far to the article during the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: I created a thread and invited you to participate, which you did do. I put out a request message in your talk page reaching out directly, you refused to participate and archived the discussion. You have been rather avoident of adressing the source. Your whole arguement has boiled down to "Its been used before so its fine". A small scale consensus was reached on the initall thread. You have refused to elaborate your point and claimed and have cause the review to be dragged out. Repetedly throught the whole situation you have claimed WP:SENIORITY. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this review was unsuccessful due to an inability to come to agreement on changes to be made. The review is closed with no prejudice against renomination. I encourage the nominators to improve the article further and renominate at a future date. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • No major uncited passages or tables. Source reliability handled at 2b. Pass 2a. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).
  • I think source review here will be tricky.
  • Can you make a case for Doctor Who News (doctorwhonews.net) being a reliable source?
  • Can you make a case for Doctor Who Information Network (dwin.org) being a reliable source?
  • For current cites #41-43 (citing the episodes), I'm not sure of the proper way to cite a work of fiction directly for plot elements, so I'll check that and see what the applicable policy is.
  • What's the case for shannonsullivan being a reliable source? Appears to be the personal website of a superfan.
  • I'm skeptical about all of the DVD release date cites, especially the ones tagged as dead. Is this information not available from the BBC somewhere? Resellers may or may not have accurate information.
  • Can you make a case for WhatCulture being a reliable source?
  • Can you make a case for David Tennant News being a reliable source?
  • How about Blogtor Who? Seems unlikely to be reliable.
  • The last source (BBC soundtrack) has a good archive link, but the primary URL leads to a generic redirected page. Please see if you can find an updated non-archive link if possible, or mark the primary URL as dead. This is worth checking for a lot of the older sources.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig flags one issue, but the source acknowledges lifting from Wikipedia, so no copyvio problem there (but worth checking for circular citation). Hold for manual spotcheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • One fair use image, one classic CC2.0 image - no issues. Pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Any very minor tweak to second caption can be handled in prose review.
  • I think this image from Piper's page could be added to this article.
    • I have added it under casting, I'm not sure about the caption but I think the one I chose is good.
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one! Full disclosure: I have edited this article thrice (twice to add maintenance templates, once 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)[reply]

Lead[edit]

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

Episodes[edit]

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

Casting[edit]

  • 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?  Done
    • Anything about Piper, Clarke, and Coduri deciding to return?
    • There's almost certainly information about Sladen's return, and possibly Leeson's  Done
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  Done
Begun trimming section
  • Image caption should be rephrased—why is Piper appearing in series 1 important?  Done
    • It also needs a reference  Done

Production[edit]

Development
  • Recording for the Christmas special...—this information belongs in § Filming  Done
  • Image caption needs a full stop and a reference  Done
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  Done
  • Probably a good idea to introduce Davies's role as head writer/executive producer earlier in the paragraph  Done
  • Previous writers → Returning writers  Done
  • Russell T. Davies hired Matthew Graham to write Fear Her. → Davies hired Graham.  Done
  • The sentences about producers and directors don't fit here; this section is about writing  Done
  • 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  Done
  • Like Casting as aforementioned, this section needs some more information about the writing itself, and insight into the writers' minds. Series 1 and series 5 are great examples of this
Music
  • Wales, and were orchestrated → Wales and orchestrated  Done
  • 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  Done
Filming
  • The reference does not support the table at all—I'm afraid it's completely unsourced  Done
  • The section also needs significant expansion beyond the table: production dates, locations, directors, notable information about the production, etc.  Done

Release[edit]

  • Any information about the series' promotion—trailers, screenings, etc.?
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. ☔
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  Done
Couldnt find anything not marking not done as mabye something will pop up.
Something popped up
  • TARDISODEs → Tardisodes  Done
Home media
  • A paragraph might be useful here, briefly detailing the home media releases and perhaps some notable special features (dependent on the references)  Done

In print[edit]

  • This should probably be made a subsection of § Release  Done

Reception[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
Critical reception
  • First sentence is unnecessary and unsourced  Done
  • Outlets should be italicised—e.g., Screen Rant, CBR  Done
  • 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  Done Removed
  • This has the makings of a good section but it needs some work—what in particular did critics like/dislike about this series and its episodes? Probably the best way to present this information is to group per element of critique: one paragraph for performances, one for writing, one for music, etc.  Done
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)  Done
  • RTS Television Awards → Royal Television Society Programme Awards, and link  Done
  • BAFTA TV Awards → British Academy Television Awards  Done
  • VES Awards → Visual Effects Society Awards  Done
  • 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  Done

Soundtrack[edit]

  • This should probably be made a subsection of § Release as well  Not done 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. ☔
 Done
  • Infobox should be moved to the top of the section  Done
  • In the infobox, Ben Foster should not be listed as a producer  Done
  • first series, second series and → first series, second series, and  Done
  • The entire second paragraph is unsourced—none of it is mentioned in the refs provided  Done
Replaced first ref second ref is confirmed under "Second & Third Helpings"

References and images[edit]

  • This magazine should come in handy for some additions as mentioned above
  • 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)[reply]
    • Ref 3: I generally prefer linking publishers (in this case, BARB) but it's inconsistent with the rest of the refs here  Done
    • Ref 10, 14, 35, 38, 86, 90: remove Entertainment |  Done
    • Ref 11 and 32: remove Press Office –  Done
    • Ref 18: author is Lewis Knight  Done
    • Ref 39: remove – Doctor Who News – Cult  Done
    • Ref 39: Digital Spy should be in |website= or |work=  Done
    • Ref 39: author is Joanne Oatts  Done
    • Ref 42 and 75: ScreenRant → Screen Rant  Done
    • Ref 53 and 55 are dead and need to be replaced  Done only 55
    • Ref 53, 55, 66: www.ezydvd.com.au → EzyDVD  Done
    • Ref 57, 59, 61: www.fishpond.com.au → Fishpond  Done
    • Ref 65: www.jbhifi.com.au → JB Hi-Fi  Done
    • Ref 73 and 95 are inconsistent with the other Amazon refs  Done
    • Ref 80 and 81: remove UK | Wales |  Done
    • Ref 85 and 93: IMDb is unreliable  Done
      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=  Done
    • Ref 92: TV Squad should be in |website= or |work=  Done
    • Ref 97 should be formatted properly using {{Cite web}}  Done
    • Ref 98: remove BBC – Doctor Who – News –  Done
  • Consider adding alternative text to all images  Done

Result[edit]

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?#3—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)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: 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)[reply]
Yes I'm trying to find a replacement for ref 93 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I will continue this review soon, when I have more time. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What content are you having trouble finding sources for? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFX Awardse . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Problem is I cant find a way to access the issue. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree that transclusion makes the most sense here. Thanks for addressing the infobox placement! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Second pass[edit]

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  Done
  • Ref 18 seems completely unnecessary  Done
  • Noel Clarke should likely be moved to "Guest stars"; he wasn't a series lead  Done
  • 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.  Done
  • Refs 27, 35, and 36 don't mention the episode names  Done
  • Clarify that Collins turned down a companion role back in the 60s  Done
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  Done
  • 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
  • Same with § Filming. Series 5 does this really well, briefly outlining each production block with major dates and locations. We don't want excessive details, but consider some expansion here
Release
  • Per above, a "Promotion" section would be good if possible—nothing too excessive, just some information about major trailers, screenings, etc.
Reception

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)[reply]

@Lotsw73: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_2&oldid=1221712293"