# Talk:Lucky Day (Doctor Who)


### Lucky Day (Doctor Who)
Hi there, I'd like to potentially take a few articles from this season of Doctor Who to WP:FA. I wanted to bring this here first to get some general opinions on whether it's within that scope, and if so, anything that can be improved now to make the process less stressful later.
Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Drive-by comment from Icepinner
@TheDoctorWho: This isn't a formal review, but I've noticed that the formatting of the sources is not consistent; some have archived links, others don't. This needs to be addressed before it gets nominated for FAC per 2c of the FA criteria. Icepinner  16:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Done, thank you! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Aoba47
I would consider adding a link to the companion (Doctor Who) article in the lead, as I could see some readers being unfamiliar with the concept. I could also understand potential sea of blue concerns, and the character and actor links should take priority, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention. I have a similar comment for the article.
I think that the infobox image would need a stronger rationale for inclusion. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum, and this kind of media should be used to illustrate something to the reader that cannot by conveyed through the prose alone. The purpose of use in the non-free use rationale guideline reads more like a generic rationale to me, rather than something that is more specific to what this image adds to this article. Just to be clear, I think that non-free media is very helpful, but the rationale for inclusion should be readily apparent.
I'll discuss this with my co-nom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've expanded the purpose quite a bit, does it read better now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
It does read better to me. I appreciate that it is more specific to Doctor Who and how it promotes its episodes. On a somewhat related note, I do love when shows promote episodes with posters and such. It makes it all feel more fun and engage in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
If the infobox image is kept, it should have ALT text. I would make sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
It seems like some of the entries in the lead do not have citations to support this information. I was looking at the music and executive producer parameters in particular. I was uncertain if this should be cited and said in the article or if the episode itself would serve as the citation for this. I do not think that you would need to make any changes, but it may be worthwhile to look into this to see how this is normally done. It has been a while since I have last worked on a television episode article.
Where is this? I don't see it in the lead section. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for that. I meant to say the infobox rather than the lead. Murray Gold is only mentioned in the infobox as well as the executive producers like Julie Gardner and Jane Tranter. It may be worthwhile to wait to see how other editors respond to this, as I could see an argument for the episode itself being a citation for this information. Apologies again for my typo with this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I assume that this should be okay without citations similar to the same way that the episode itself sources the plot (WP:PLOTCITE / WP:PLOTSOURCE). These people are definitely credited in the episode. As for not mentioning the people in the body, MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS should apply as it seems to be "key specialised information". TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. It has admittedly been quite some time now since I have last worked on a television episode article. I think the last time that I have done so was back in 2020, which is crazy to me. That makes sense to me. I appreciate the links. It is always good for me to learn new things or just a refresh. This is all good then. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I would recommend revising this part, When it is revealed that Conrad's true aim is to turn the public against UNIT, from the lead to something like the following, When Conrad's true aim to turn the public against UNIT is revealed. I just think that it would put more emphasis on the subject (in this case Conrad's true aim) and would be a bit more conicse.
I would provide some sort of introduction or descriptor for UNIT. I have only seen bits and pieces of Doctor Who, and I am not familiar with this. I could see other readers being unfamiliar with this so having additional context would be helpful here. I have the same comment for the plot summary.
I would avoid having "explore" and "exploring" in the following sentence: McTighe used the episode to explore Ruby and Kate's characters while also exploring the spread and effects of online hatred. It is best to avoid that kind of repetition whenever possible. I would think something like "develop" could be used to replace "explore".
I have a question about this part, childhood fears of dog-like creatures in the dark. I was wondering if "canine" would be a stronger word choice than "dog-like"? For this same part, I would also consider a way to avoid having "creatures" and "creature" in the same sentence.
The original source expressly says "dog-like", not just canines as a whole. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I would think that "canine" and "dog-like" are synonyms. The Merriam-Webster entry, for instance, defines "canine" as "of or resembling that of a dog" so I was just curious if that would be a better word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that it may be worthwhile to briefly mentioning the filming locations in the lead in the same sentence about the filming dates, especially as images are used later on in the article to highlight this aspect of production.
I would use Belinda Chandra's full name when she is first named in the lead. I would general use a character's full name for their first reference in the article as the lead and the article itself are treated as separate entities to some extent. I have the same comment for Ruby Sunday and Kate Lethbridge-Stewart.
I would recommend adding a descriptor for Belinda for her first mention in the plot summary. I would actually reexamine the plot summary as a whole to make sure that it could be understood by a reader who is completely unfamiliar with the Doctor Who franchise. I think a brief description of the show's overall concept for the lead and plot summary would be helpful, as well as being mindful about dropping in-universe jargon, such as the TARDIS and UNIT, or characters, like Conrad Clark in the lead or Mrs Flood at the end of the plot summary, without any context. Since Doctor Who is more fantastical and is in its own separate world with its own separate lore, it does take more to establish for readers than a story set in contemporary times.
Is this part, seeing a younger Doctor, referencing a different version of the Doctor and if so, should this character be linked?
It may be helpful to say Conrad Clark's age in 2025. Readers could just do the math themselves so this may be unnecessary, but I just think that it would be a nice thing to do anyway.
Iirc Conrad's age is not directly stated, but I did specify he was an adult at this point in time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I am confused by the plot summary. Apologies in advance as I could just be incredibly dense right now. I just had a lot of questions while reading through this. How are the Shreek "fake"? How did Conrad use them as part of a setup against UNIT? How did Conrad use his relationship with Ruby as part of this larger plan? How did all of this turn the public against UNIT? Again, I could just be super dense, but I am not sure that I fully understand the story.
This is not required for a FAC, but I would highly recommend archiving web links to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death. It is just helpful, as I have had instances where I had to revisit an article because sources were just pulled from the Internet without any notice or warning.
I would italicizing Doctor Who and put the episode title in single quotation marks per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
I am not sure Screen Rant would be a great source for a FAC per WP:VALNET (and while the link is about video game sources, I do think that it is applicable in other instances). I think there are questions and concerns about the quality and accuracy about Valnet sources, so I would be uncertain about using a 2025 article for a FA. It may be worthwhile to see how other editors feel about this.
I hope that these comments are helpful. This is focused primarily on the lead, the infobox, and the plot summary, with some comments on the citations at the end. 
Just to be clear, I have only seen a single episode of Doctor Who, which was "The End of the World", so I come to this as primarily an outsider. I believe that I have primarily read about Doctor Who through Wikipedia articles. I think that my primary concern for a FAC would be making sure that this is approachable and could be understood by readers less familiar with Doctor Who. I was also a bit lost with the plot summary.
But, let me know if there any questions about any of my comments. Once everything has been addressed, I will continue reading through the rest of the article and will continue my review from there. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47:, did most of this, will discuss the image with my co-nom. I have not hit up MOSCONFORMTITLE yet, but will hit it up soon. Responded to a few points above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping and for the message. I have left responses above. Apologies for my mix-up with the infobox and the lead for one of my comments. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Apologies for the second ping here and sorry for taking so long to get back around to this, I was a little busier than expected and was also dealing with a tad of WP burnout. I'd also like to thank you for leaving us comments on this, I believe I've responded and/or addressed the few things that my co-nom wasn't able to get around to!
"The End of the World" is a great episode! Funny that one of the songs used in that episode (Toxic by Brittany Spears), was also used 20 years later in the episode that immediately precedes this one. Hope you're doing well.  TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, and no need to apologies. I completely understand, as I have been busier than expected as well and I can relate to feeling a bit of WP burnout. I will go through your comments and the article over the weekend if that is okay with you. I hope that my review is helpful, and I am looking forward to reading the article!
I really enjoyed "The End of the World" too! I should have watched more Doctor Who after that, but I think that at the time, I was not entirely sure where to find it (as I am an American and was not entirely sure where to find episodes  in the mid-2000's lol). That is interesting that "Toxic" was used for the episode right before this one! Thank you for the kind words. I am trying my best lol. I hope you are doing well too! Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
 
I believe that the following quote, "toxic, online hatred", could be paraphrased without losing anything.  Done
I wonder if this part, The two had their first conversation over FaceTime and a second meeting took place on Zoom, could be a tad more concise. How about something like, The two first talked over FaceTime and later on Zoom? That being said, I do understand the importance of wanting to specify FaceTime was for one meeting while Zoom was a second one, so feel free to disagree with this suggestion.   Done
Is this article using the serial comma? I see an instance where it is used, the three 60th anniversary specials, the 2023 Christmas special, and the entirety of the fourteenth series, and an instance where it is not used, Gibson's performance, the twist regarding Conrad's true motives and the episode's social commentary. It is up to you whether or not to use it, but it should be consistent. I think that the article leans more toward using it, but I do not want to change anything, as I am not entirely certain.
I have a comment about this part, the 1974–1975 Fourth Doctor serial, Robot. I appreciate the clarification about which Doctor is in this serial (and it further clarifies to readers that this is a Doctor Who serial), but I was wondering if the same should be done for this part, the 1971 serial The Dæmons? Maybe something like the 1971 Third Doctor serial, The Dæmons?  Done
PTSD is linked twice in the article, which is okay as I believe the rules around duplicate linking has been changed to allow this. That being said, it is presented in two different ways. The acronym is used in the plot summary and the full term is used in the "Production" section, so I would be consistent about one way or the other. I think using the full term would be most beneficial, but I will leave that up to you, as I would imagine that readers would be familiar with either version.  Done
I would be mindful of the repetition of the word "episode" in the "Production" section. It is a tad unavoidable in certain respects, but there is a sentence that ends with "the episode" and the subsequent sentence begins with "the episode", which is less than ideal. You could use either the episode's title or "it" to add some variety.  Done
For the images in the article, I think that it would be useful to add the year they were taken to the captions to provide readers with more context for these.  Done
Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but I am not quite sure what "revived era" means in this context, Doctor Who's revived era, "Rose" (2005).
I believe the "Broadcast" and "Ratings" subsections could be combined, as done in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). The subsections right now are quite short, and since these two concepts are closely related, I think that it would read and look better to have them both together as a single subsection.
Would it be useful to mention the ratings for the following episode, "The Story & the Engine", or would that be better kept for that episode's article?
The lead presents clear topics for the episode's reception, and I am not sure if this is clearly represented in the "Critical reception" subsection. I am wondering if topic sentences or more structure in general would be useful here. I think more focus for this subsection in general would be helpful.
Engadget is not linked in its citation.  Done
Apologies if this is a silly question, but just out of curiosity, after the fifteenth series was completed, were there any reviews on it as a whole with a retrospective on individual episodes like this one?
Given the focus on the Shreek (which I always read as Shrek lol), I am wondering if an image with one of them would be more beneficial for the infobox than the current title-card. It may be useful to provide a visual for what these creatures look like. You do not need to do anything regarding this. Just more so something to think about for the future.
I believe that this should be it from me. I have made the following edits to the article. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. I hope that these comments are helpful, and I am looking forward to seeing this in the FAC space in the future. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)