# Talk:Doctor Who series 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Saw all the episodes in this season a while back. Haven't ever edited or read the Wikipedia article. Will look it over, and post up a review later. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 14, 2017, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Gonna have to put this one on hold for now as there are several problems. I was gonna quick fail, but I see the nominator is quite active and from the nominator's username, it appears they'll probably get right on fixing these. The lede fails WP:LEAD, needs to be expanded to serve as a full standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
to do
I was definitely planning to, but my gracious thanks to Dresken for working on the nomination requirements on the article! Especially while I'm in the middle of finals exams, but I definitely plan to work on it myself as well, as the nominator and all. -- AlexTW 03:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Verifiable?: Several accuracy problems, will label them by sections:
Episodes: The first episode of the series, "New Earth", was also the first episode since Doctor Who was revived not to be set in the vicinity of Earth, and the first story since The Greatest Show in the Galaxy from Season 25 to be wholly set on an alien world; every episode of Series 1 had taken place either on Earth itself or on a space station in the vicinity of the planet. = unsourced production info, doesn't fit the guidelines for WP:PLOTSUMMARY, needs citations.
 Done -- Text removed Dresken (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Episodes: Two mini-episodes were also recorded: "Doctor Who: Children in Need" was produced for the 2005 Children in Need appeal, and interactive episode "Attack of the Graske" was recorded for digital television following the broadcast of "The Christmas Invasion". 13 TARDISODEs were also produced to serve as prequels to each episode. All episodes were filmed as part of the second series' production cycle. = uncited.
 Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Main characters: Following his brief appearance in the closing moments of "The Parting of the Ways" he was next seen in the Children in Need special, broadcast on 18 November 2005. "The Christmas Invasion", broadcast one month later, marked his first full episode. = uncited.
 Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Main characters: Noel Clarke's character Mickey Smith, a recurring guest character during the first series, featured in several episodes. = uncited.
 Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Guest stars: Camille Coduri continued to guest in the series as recurring character Jackie Tyler. Shaun Dingwall returned for several episodes as Pete Tyler and Penelope Wilton reprised her role as Harriet Jones. = uncited.
 Done -- cited. Dresken (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Production: The second series encompassed a loose story arc based around the word "Torchwood", which first appeared in the 2005 episode "Bad Wolf". The mythology of Torchwood is built across the series; in "The Christmas Invasion" it is revealed to be a secret organisation which possesses alien technology, and its establishment is shown in "Tooth and Claw". Contemporary Torchwood is finally visited by the Doctor and Rose in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday", at which point it is situated within London's Canary Wharf and accidentally allows the invasion of the Cybermen and, subsequently, the Daleks. The Doctor and Rose are forcibly separated by these events, which lead to Rose's entrapment within a parallel universe. = uncited.
 Done -- Added citations. Dresken (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Production: A Children in Need special and an interactive episode, entitled "Attack of the Graske", were both produced alongside the series. = uncited.
 Done -- Added citation Dresken (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Australia: In Australia, this series aired in 2006, on ABC at 7:30 pm Saturdays. The premiere episode was the 2005 Christmas special. During the runs of these episodes, the Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down was not shown at that time. This series aired again from Tuesday, 27 January 2009 starting with "The Christmas Invasion" at 8:30 pm. From 3 February 2009, not only was the show airing on ABC2 on Tuesdays at 8:30 pm, Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down episodes aired right after the episode. This is the second time that the Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down episodes were shown; the first time happened in 2008 when airing series 4 of Doctor Who. Then from 2 January 2012, episodes were shown at 7:30pm on ABC2 daily from Rose to The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe to the lead-up of Series 7. The lot of episodes were repeated again a second time later that year. = uncited.
 Done -- removed as unsourced and not notable. Dresken (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Awards and nominations: At the 2007 BAFTA TV Awards Crispin Green was nominated for Best Editing Fiction/Entertainment, while The Mill were nominated for Best Visual Effects. = uncited.
 Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Awards and nominations: At the 2007 Saturn Awards the show was nominated for two awards; Best Syndicated/Cable Television Series and Best Television DVD Release, it did not win either. The show was nominated for the Scream Award for Best TV show but did not win. At the 2007 SFX Awards, the show won Best TV Show, Euros Lyn and Steven Moffat won Best TV episode for "The Girl in the Fireplace". James Strong and Matt Jones were nominated for "The Impossible Planet"/"The Satan Pit" and Graeme Harper and Russell T Davies for "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". David Tennant won for Best TV Actor and Billie Piper won for Best TV Actress.[citation needed] = already tagged as "citation needed" = normally a "quick fail" criteria. = uncited.
 Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Notes:  Canadian release was originally announced as the same day as the US issue, but the decision by the CBC to schedule a two-month mid-season hiatus led to the release date being pushed back; ultimately, it was released before the CBC was able to air the final two episodes of the season. = uncited.
 Done -- Added citation. Dresken (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
References: Much of References sect has red colored problems in citation templates: Check date values in:
 Done -- Dresken (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Article contains sections for major aspects, but much of it is unsourced at the time being.
 Done -- all citations covered above. Dresken (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Uncited awards info, already tagged as "citation needed", needs to be addressed promptly.
 Done -- all citations covered above. Dresken (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
5. Stable? Stable over one month. No talk page problems.
6. Images?: 3 images used. 2 fair use. 1 free use. Free use is good. Fair use in infobox has good rationale. Not sure File:Doctor Who 2005 logo.png adds anything encyclopedic to the article and could be removed.
 Done -- removed image Dresken (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully nominator can address the citation issues in 7 days, good luck !Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


### Reference section problems
Bare links Many bare links and unformatted links in References. Sagecandor (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- fixed links in References. Dresken (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


#### Promoted
Promoted. Thank you to AlexTheWhovian for the helpful responses on this page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More thanks to Dresken, they did far more than I did on this. -- AlexTW 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


### The Christmas Invasion
The BBC list The Christmas Invasion as the final episode of Season 1, not as the first episode of Series 2, despite the change of Doctor. [[1]] surely things need to be changed to reflect this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


### Critical Reception
I added more to the critical reception section I think meeting requirements for GA OLI 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


### Doctor Who (series 2)
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)
Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
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)


### 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.  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
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
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
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
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
This should probably be made a subsection of § Release  Done


### 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  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
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
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)
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
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)

@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)
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)
@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)

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  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
Someone removed it.
Production
Refs 47 and 49 don't specify that Harper directed for this series; consider using Pixley 2006, p. 54  Done
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  Done
In consequence, Davies hired → Davies consequently hired  Done
§ 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
§ Ratings needs some expansion—the ratings table looks great, but some more prose would be good too, à la series 5 and series 6
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)

@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)
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)
@Lotsw73: Thats alright just dont overuse it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rhain: 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)
@OlifanofmrTennant: That's a great start, but I'd love a bit more expansion if possible. Perhaps consider one paragraph on narrative aspects (acting, writing) and one on production elements (visual effects, production design, cinematography, music, etc.). True Detective season 1 is one of the best examples of this section, but something simpler would be suitable here. Let me know your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Rhain 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 I'd love to see some expansion if possible—comparison with the previous series, more discussion about specific ratings and the AI, anything else about foreign ratings. This is all dependent on sourcing, though—just do the best you can. Series 5 has the best example of this section, but series 1 is good too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC) 
@Lotsw73: 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:

§ Casting—any information on why Piper returned for series 2, her thoughts on working with Tennant, or her thoughts on departing?  Done
§ Writing per above
§ Filming per above  Done
§ Broadcast—it achieved poor ratings isn't explicitly verified by the source; consider rephrasing or finding a different ref  Done
§ Promotion per above
§ Ratings per above and discussion  Done
§ Critical reception per above and discussion
As always, please let me know if you have questions or concerns. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks for this update! Those sections look great—I only have a few notes before § Filming and § Ratings are locked in:

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.
– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: 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)
@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: 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)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been working on the article, and seeing that the last nomination review only had a few issues remaining by the end, I believe I might be able to fix them. Putting it out there, in case anyone might like to help in adding to promotion, writing or critical reception; or in helping nominate it, as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not entirely familiar with it. Happy to hear any thoughts on it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As the most recent GA reviewer, I just want to clarify that the remaining issues, while few in number, were still quite significant. In particular, I believe § Writing could benefit from some additional information, and § Promotion needs significant expansion. While it's nice to see § Critical reception has been expanded (though I've since reverted per WP:CLOP), it still needs some work: instead of simply summarising individual reviews across two or three paragraphs, it should be organised by thematic element to discuss the overall response (as mentioned). Check out WP:CRS for specific advice.The article is in better shape than it was six months ago, but I still think it needs some fairly significant work before another successful GA nomination. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know how close we were to supposed to make the text to the review, thanks for linking to WP:CRS, I'll make the changes. Will expand be expanding the writing and promotion section in a few days' time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion! Glad to see so many improvements made to the article. If I could suggest one more: I think the § Critical reception section would benefit from more episode reviews. In the second and third paragraphs, nine of the ten sentences are about the two-part finale; only the final sentence addresses the series generally. Obviously the finale is significant, but it would be good to see other episodes incorporated, especially since the first paragraph already mentions the middling response to "Fear Her". Just my 2¢—congrats again! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find much about the series in itself, so I used the reviews for the finale, and kept the focus on parts that could relate to the entire series. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there's an unfortunate lack of reviews for the series overall, but it would be beneficial to have some comments about other episodes too—I'm sure there's more about the performances, characters, and writing in other reviews (I'm especially thinking about "The Girl in the Fireplace" and "The Satan Pit" for praise, possibly "Love & Monsters" and "Fear Her" for criticism). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll use these articles to add that when I get the time. Thanks for the suggestion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the data in the table is missing, and even the data present is not sourced, neither now, nor in the previous sources, and it feels likely that they were only added because they are present from series 4 on; so I am thinking of replacing it with a graph instead, like series 1. Putting it out there to prevent any future edit warring. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content is determinantal to this encyclopedia. Find alternate sources to replace it with. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
There aren't any alternate sources. Removal of data is detrimental, but so is incomplete and unsourced data. The Appreciation Index is already present in the episode list, so we aren't losing that. I can add a graph for the rank of the episodes' viwers, that's the only content that was truly removed: it was complete and sourced. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this nomination is on the backlog drive list, so I'm taking it on. I know little to nothing of Doctor Who if that means something. I'll be referring to previous GA nominations as well as the other good series articles. Reconrabbit 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)


### Prose
#### Lead
The use of "This" rather than "It" to refer to the series is awkward and not replicated on other series articles.
Changed to "it"
A majority of filming Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing or is the phrase missing a word?
looks strange to me too, but grammar checkers online do not show any errors; would it be better to change it?
It's probably a preference thing. I don't mind whatever decision is made.
I prefer keeping it as is.  Done


#### Episodes
Major corrections were made in the previous review. It may be beneficial to note the length of the supplemental episodes and Tardisodes in comparison to the main episodes.
Added length of tardisodes, the length of the others are mentioned on their own article page, so I haven't added them.


#### Casting
Anything I would correct here is preferential on the use and absence of commas. No changes Y


#### Production
which had its roots in a story about "Queen Victoria and a werewolf" which Davies had been contemplating since 2004 Change one of these whiches to avoid repetition  Done (changed second which to ", something")
due to the cost involved in creating another planet, according to Davies with only two stories set on another planet the "according to Davies" might be more clearly connected to the prior sentence than the latter  Done (reworded)
that includes the middle eight, after Gold omitted the "middle eight" why is middle eight in quotes only once here? is it referring to the middle eight seconds?  Done (explained what they are, removed one)


#### Release
The promotion of the second series also took various other forms This seems overly qualified - maybe remove various since the same word is used in the next paragraph  Done
they updated the fictional websites they had created before the association episodes such as those of Mickey and UNIT with their own website saw the release of mini-episodes of 2-3 mins, called Tardisodes, are there missing words or punctuation here? Looks like a run on sentence that gets confused at "website saw the release".  Done
the release of their first programme-specific Christmas double issue in 16 years instead of the simple generic one for the release of The Christmas Invasion[...] this sentence seems to be missing a predicate?  Done


#### Reception
Link AI rating or gloss to Appreciation Index?  Done (wikilinked)
and use of cliff hangers also received praise,[148][152][156][157]. Which punctuation mark do you want to use here?   Done (chose period)
mixing both "trumpet blares and subtle emoti-motifs", very well; this is a strange construction, I would omit "very well" and use a period instead of a semicolon, since along with the dynamic nature of the series and the various settings doesn't follow as being "mixed" as part of the soundtrack and could be rewritten as a standalone sentence. It should be clear that these praises are from a singular source, that both things are characterized as playful, etc.  Done (reworded)
supremely entertaining television, playing only by its own rules and excelling at it. this should be stated by quoting the reviewers, it's unusual to use this kind of language in wiki-voice.  Done (rephrased)
The finale was characterized as an intense epic which is still led by character-driven drama, with the intensity inherent in the strength of the show's two biggest foes combined with a moving and poignant story about loss and refusing to let go with Rose inconsolably slapping the wall, and the Doctor shedding a tear in his despair this could be split into two sentences, and "poignant" should be quoted - it should be clear that the series is characterized as poignant or intense, and that it isn't an inherent quality of the work.  Done
writing that Doctor Who always finds ways to think big and deliver on this scale rather than paraphrasing, it would be better to directly quote Braxton.  Done


### References
Layout: Nothing unusual to note here. Y
Copyright violations: The most likely point where this would happen, the episode descriptions, give no results when trying to search these backwards. Other results are quotes from the reception section. I give it a pass. Y
Original research:


#### Spot checking
Based on this revision:

Fixed, Reconrabbit. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


### Scope
Broad: Sections have been expanded from lists of names to larger prose sections (per GA3) and each area expected in an article on this topic is present (episodes, casting, production, release, and reception). Y
Narrow: Specific concerns from GA3 in each applicable area have been addressed. Y


### Stability
Neutrality: Some parts of the reception are stated in a way that makes it unclear who is applying a specific quality to the series. Could be construed as puffery on behalf of the work without attribution or quotations.
Will give the whole section a glance tomorrow; I was a new editor when I added that, so the quoting and paraphrasing was very wonky. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring: Very infrequent disruption, nothing in the scope of this review. Y


### Images
Licenses: Cover art attributed as fair use, rationale in place. Other images are CC BY 2.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0. Y
Relevance: Cover art is used appropriately in the infobox. The use of a ratings chart is in line with other series articles (I'm assuming the info comes from Pixley 2006). Photos of the main character actors are useful, though I guess David Tennant is in the Development section to avoid crowding. Y

@Reconrabbit: Replied to some of the remarks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit: All remarks fixed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit: All done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit: Made changes. Do you think the reception section is good now, or should I start from scratch, in case it looks like a mess? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. I don't have any more qualms with the prose... Give me a few and I'll finish up looking at the sources I have access to. Reconrabbit 13:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)