Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 1/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I am going to give this article a review. I'm a big Doctor Who fan (though I am a few weeks behind on the latest season), but I've never been all that involved in the Doctor Who articles here. I'll go through this one soon and see if anything needs to be fixed up. I am pretty busy at the moment, so I may not respond straight away to any further comments over the next few days. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a pretty good lead. My only big issue with it is the first line—"The new first series" is sort of confusing, at least to me, and I knew about the whole revival thing ahead of time. I feel like there is a better way to start the article, perhaps something more like "The first series of the 2005 revival of..." and then probably re-word the rest of the paragraph to fit that. Also, there should be a "the" before "British science fiction programme", and perhaps "the Doctor, his only series as the Doctor" could be changed to "the Doctor, his only series in the role".
  • The article shouldn't really have both the series summary and episode table, per the new guidelines at MOS:TVPLOT. Also, I'm pretty sure we decided on not having actor's names listed in plot summaries, which would apply to the episode table as well. If they are notable enough to be mentioned, they can be sourced in the cast section.
  • The paragraph at the start of the Episodes section is unsourced.
  • The episode summaries all seem fine, but some of them are a little run-on-y. A few commas and sentence breaks could help there, but its not a major.
  • The first sentence of the Cast section needs a source.
  • I think the Eccleston leaving paragraph should come at the end of the Main cast section, for a more logical reading order. Also, some of the information in the paragraph seems like it should be in a different order: The line "Series one was Christopher Eccleston's only series in the role of the Doctor" should be the start of the paragraph, then the "Eccleston's contract was for a single year..." line, and then the "intent to leave", "BBC released a statement", "BBC revealed", and finally "Eccleston revealed". As it is, it reads like the sentences have been randomly jumbled up.
  • The line "Davies had singled out Barrowman for the part" seems redundant given the previous two sentences.
  • The last three paragraphs of the recurring/guest section could probably just be a single paragraph, and it would be nice if all those actors could be sourced.
  • The sentence "Davies voluntarily wrote..." doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. I think it can easily be re-written.
  • The list of elements from the fifteen-page pitch should be broken with semicolons.
  • "Davies was assigned as head writer and executive producer for the series." This is redundant after the development section.
  • "Also, like the original series, stories..." until the end of that paragraph is unsourced.
  • The last writing paragraph should have another semicolon between "Dalek" and "and", and has a couple unsourced bits at the end to sort out.
  • Do we really need separate sections for the production blocks and filming? It seems to me that the blocks table could easily fit at the start of the filming section, perhaps with a |+ caption.
  • "most of which" can just be "mostly".
  • Since the caption on the title card isn't close to the bit that actually discusses the fan reaction, perhaps the sources for that info could be included in the caption as well.
  • "The series aired for 13 consecutive weeks" there is a bit of confusion as to which series you are referring here, after just talking about the Confidential series.
  • "The Sci Fi Channel originally passed on the new series..." you should clarify straight up here that you have started talking about the US airing.
  • DVD release could probably be called something else, like "Home media".
  • Since the critical reception addresses more than just critics, perhaps something like "Response" would be a better heading.
  • Would the awards and nominations be better presented in a table format? It might make it all a bit clearer given the number of awards listed in the prose.
  • The soundtrack section is unsourced, and it probably wouldn't hurt for it to be expanded a little if possible. Is there any info on what they did with the original theme song for the revival at least?
  • The references throughout the article could be expanded, especially with archives.
  • Finally, on a bit of a side note, is there a reason why this article is classified as List class?
    •  Done Fixed. No idea why, but it's been like that since the talk page was created. Definitely not just a List-class article, given the information available outside of the list. -- AlexTW 15:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's quite a few things that I think should be dealt with before I would be happy to promote this article. Let me know how you go / if you have any questions / etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Pretty sure that covers everything. -- AlexTW 05:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the bit about Davies' pitch for the series reads a bit weird. If I might make a suggestion, perhaps it could be reworded to something like this: "Davies voluntarily wrote a pitch for series, the first time he had done so; he previously chose to jump straight to writing pilot episodes because he felt that a pitch would "feel like [he's] killing the work". Other than that, there is just a question of the unreliable source tag for the Moffett info in the cast section. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion implemented for Davie's pitch; alternate source added for Moffett's audition. -- AlexTW 11:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good job Alex. This article is broad in coverage and reasonably well written. Definitely a Good Article, so I'm going to go ahead and give it a pass . I am also supportive of an attempt to get the other Doctor Who season articles up to GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, cheers! Onto the second series, then. -- AlexTW 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_1/GA1&oldid=1217048743"