Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures

[edit]

Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DWF91 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Finish ... We love stories.

Back with a Doctor Who list, this time with audio plays instead of television episodes. The Monthly Adventures began in 1999, while the television show was on hiatus, and continued till 2021, with 275 releases over that period, showing the adventures of four different Doctors. The lead can be expanded, and probably so can the cast section- will be grateful for any remarks on what a non-fan would look for in a lead, in addition to the usual FLC remarks. DWF91 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The primary refs remaining are most likely not replaceable- if that does not seem to meet the FLC criteria, you can refrain from supporting the nom.

Comments

[edit]
MPGuy2824
[edit]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
    • This needs to be done for all tables. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
      • Forgot that there was another wikitable. Also saw that the episode table template has a sr only caption by default, so added those too
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Peter Davison]] becomes !scope=row | [[Peter Davison]] (on its own line).
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
    • Did the above changes for cast table
  • For the cast table, per MOS:COLOR, color shouldn't be the only way to differentiate between main vs guest.
    • Changed guests tick to G, might add a legend later
      • Instead of separate keys for color and letter, you can use
        ✓ Main cast member
        • I have done it differently, which I think looks better than this would- (is there a way to check the effects of these changes on a screen reader?)
  • The "Anthology released" lines seem to be a violation of MOS:COLHEAD.
    • I'm not sure it's a violation- it's the same code used in episode lists, it's a "short summary", not a column
      • It looks odd only due to its rarity. Maybe you can consider moving this information about anthologies to a new section and table. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
        • It also looks weird to have multiple titles in the same release, so I think it provides context
  • Bit weird to have "Cast" mentioned as "Releases" in the TOC. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved it below the cast, and removed cast and continuation from it.

Thank you for the review, I have made all the changes, MPGuy2824. DWF91 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied inline. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replied in-line to you
MPGuy2824, all the changes have been made. DWF91 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on table accessibility.
P.S. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

[edit]
  • Cast is entirely unsourced, at the very least you need to have citation for the guests
    • It's a summary of the list
      • Either way they need to be sourced.
  • What defines a notable guest?
    • Added a definition
  • Over reliance on primary sources. I know atleast a few of these had other bits of coverage
    • Some do, but only the primary source gives all the information- I might have to use multiple sources per release, and/or it might break things on transclusion
      • Either way the number of primary sources is way too high. Of the 303 citations on the page 3 are secondary. More are out there and I'm fairly certain Doctor Who Magazine should have info on them. DWM is far enough from Big Finish to not suffer the same problem.
        • five are secondary. Sure, DWM can definitely replace some of them- but they are still semi-primary?
          • Yes, but it would be perfereable than to cite Big Finish 300 times
  • Lead image needs alt text
    • Added
  • For a page called “Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventure” it talks very little about the series. Consider adding a brief production section
    • I will do so later, I'm not sure what the pre-releases portion should contain
  • The the last section about the new audio ranges how come some Doctors have multiple stories listed?
    • Part of the revamp I believe
  • Linking is inconsistent, some are linked only on first mention and some ar are linked on every first mention on a table. (Dalek is linked on 2014, 2017 and 2019)
    • Done, though I'm on mobile, so I might have missed some
  • All “anthology release” notes are unsourced
    • Part of the release number they follow- therefore have the same ref as them
      • Then the ref should span both rows
        • The release ends at the line end, which is bolded. It's a "episode table", ref can be the sentence, but I don't think it expands past that
Ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, done all except one part, OlifanofmrTennant. DWF91 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: responded Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: responded. DWF91 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: responded Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorWhoFan91 All the "Appeared in X, Y, and Z" notes are technically unsourced and also not what I meant. What I want you to add is a source confirming that the actor appeared in atleast one story to prove that they were a guest. Also just noticed that "(which has recently dropped the subtitle)" uses the wrong tense, is wrong, and is unsourced. If it were to drop the subtitle it would simply be called Doctor Who Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This FL List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast members also has an unreferenced cast section. The notes are not unsourced, they are pointing to the release numbers, and all the relased are sourced. Fixed the tense of the sentence, reworded to correct meaning, it's sourced by the first sentence of the lead, this sentence is to provide context that the revamp was imminent. DWF91 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant, all the changes are made, except the replacing of the refs(ongoing) and intro(expanded lead, but the actual production details will be added soon)

OlifanofmrTennant the many remaining primary refs are most likely not replaceable, as sources usually do not mention the director.
OlifanofmrTennant I think I forgot to ping as I did not sign my replies. DWF91 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least you need a source confirming that the guest star appeared in a different medium before appearing in the audio range Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restructured the list in a different way now- I did it by medium bcs it seemed clunky, but it was kinda ORy. I also tweaked the inclusion criteria, and added refs where they seemed necessary for the new criteria, OlifanofmrTennant. DWF91 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • You started out the intro by saying "The lead can be expanded, and probably so can the cast section". If that's the case, why not just expand them? Acknowledging that they can be, but proceeding with the nom anyways makes it feel slightly premature.
    • There are lots of ways it can be written, I want thoughts on how (basically, should I be semi-detailed about Doctor Who and Big Finish, before I add about the Monthly Adventures(they are barely related to each other, so any prose about it would be kinda disjointed), and how much should I add about any arcs, given that they will be disjointed); cast is similar. I would added before nominating, but 275 releases is a lot, so I need a narrower view of what the best thing to write would be
      • A brief description of DW and BF wouldn't hurt, as well as the licensing agreement between BF and the Beeb (if availiable). I'd say it should consist of no more than one paragraph of the lead. Arcs don't seem overly necessary to me given the fact that it was over two decades, but a premise of DW is useful.
My lead at List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials may be a useful model, you can see how I introduced Doctor Who (years of broadcast/original cancellation/revival) followed by an overview of the specials. It's followed by a premise of the show. You'd of course replace the overview of the specials with an overview of the monthly ranges, and then the last paragraphs could be a mention of them ending and the boxset continuations. Essentially in an outline format, if I was writing this lead I would have four paragraphs divided into:
  1. Background of Doctor Who/Big Finish; Big Finish/BBC licensing (if available)
  2. Premise of Doctor Who and overview of monthly releases
  3. Main cast overview (especially the Doctors and main companions)
  4. Cancellation and continuation boxsets
The first two could also be swapped or interchanged for flow, as necessary. For example, some may disagree with me that the overview of monthly releases is at the end of the second paragraph, but I personally put it there because it would seem weird to say "Big Finish Productions began producing audio dramas featuring the Fifth Doctor, Sixth Doctor, and Seventh Doctors, starting with The Sirens of Time in July 1999" if you don't know who these characters are yet or why there are audio dramas of a tv show. Working the cast in the lead, prevents you from having to adding an intro to that section specifically.
Thank you! I'll get to it
Expanded in a different way
  • The lead images appear to be unnecessarily large and (at least for me) is pushing the table further down adding white space. I recognize that this can vary based on the size of a display, but bumping that width down to 250 seems to solve it and makes the images look more proportional to the article.
    • Reduced to 300
  • Any reason why the table uses a symbol (check) for main cast members and a letter (G) for guest? Seems like it could be more consistent by using a M for main instead.
    • It was for accessibility, per MPGuy2824, I have changed G to •
  • MOS:BADDATE says years shouldn't be abbreviated in this format.
    • I know, but there isn't much space, and I can't think of good alternatives
      • Regardless, this isn't a section of MOS that says table space exceptions are permitted. If necessary, it could be split into two tables (see List of Doctor Who cast members as an example).
        • Split
  • The Eleventh Doctor is mentioned as a featured Doctor in the 2020 table but remains absent from the cast section?
    • I checked the ref, and he isn't mentioned, so I removed him. I assumed that the data was correct after I checked the first few releases- I'll check more comprehensively
  • "In May 2020, Big Finish announced that the Main Range would conclude with its 275th release in March 2021, to be replaced with regular releases of each Doctor in their own boxsets throughout the year from January 2022.[2] The new boxsets for each Doctor were announced in May 2021.[283]" - wording feels a little off here, perhaps something like "In May 2020, Big Finish announced that the Main Range would conclude with its 275th release in March 2021. It was reported in May 2021 that they would be replaced with regular releases of each Doctor in their own boxsets from January 2022." (with the citations in the proper places, of course)?
    • No, the former is how it was reported, weirdly enough-first the date, than what the boxsets would be(though I removed March 2021, as it wasn't said in the announcement)
      • This section still seems to directly contradict itself. How was it announced in May 2020 that they would be replaced with regular releases of each Doctor in their own boxsets throughout the year if said boxsets weren't announced until May 2021? If my interpretation is incorrect, then you need to come up with your own rewording of it so that it isn't confusing to the average reader.
        • Changed wording
  • 301 of the 304 references are primary sources, which is sometimes a taggable issue. While I recognize that primary sources aren't prohibited, and can be extremely useful in some circumstances, it does lead me to question the notability of the list. Can any of these be replaced with secondary?

Thanks for the review, TheDoctorWho, replied to you. DWF91 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91: Left some replies. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho, all the changes are done except the replacing of refs(ongoing), and more detail on the Monthly Adventures(lead has been expanded, but I'm gonna add detail on the monthly adventures under it's own new heading soon) DWF91 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheDoctorWho done the expansion(not sure if it's completely good or not). I don't believe I can change any more of the refs, barely any source that I could find listed directors- I have added refs for the one that I could find. DWF91 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments after the expansion (which helped a lot by the way):
  • Can I suggest splitting the first paragraph of the lead into two sentences? Perhaps something like programme Doctor Who, produced by --> programme Doctor Who. They are produced by
  • starring one of the original actors --> starring one or more of the original actors (or "star" in place of "starring" if my first suggestion is done)
  • alien Time Lord is a MOS:BLUESEA issue
  • Same with time travelling spaceship
  • has the concept of --> has a concept of
  • The series originally ran from 1963 to 1989 before going on an indefinite hiatus. - can you add a brief sentence after this about the failed revival attempt via American television film? Seems relevant given the range includes the Eighth Doctor.
  • Eighth Doctor most moved away - is this supposed to be "mostly"?
  • releases have also compared to fanfiction - releases have also been compared to fanfiction
  • Remove the period after ref 15
TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1-4 done, 5th I added to the history only, as that seems unnecessary detail for the lead. Fixed the ce errors. DWF91 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

History6042

[edit]
  • The entirety of the cast section in fully unsourced.
    • It summarises the list- this FL also does not cite sources
  • The "Ref" table headers should be "Ref(s)"
    • The word in full is references, so no
  • There are almost no secondary sources. They are nearly all primary.
    • Most of the primary refs are in the list- secondary sources usually do not provide the complete details of a release
  • "a different body with different personality" -> "a different body with a different personality"
  • "The still alive actors" -> "The living actors"
    • the former is also correct and reads better
  • "Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Doctor" -> "Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Doctors"
  • "a character which originated" -> "a character who originated"
  • "it has also been derogatily referred to" -> "it has also been derogatorily referred to"
  • "in the way it tries to" -> "in the way they try to"
  • "correct percieved transgressions" -> "correct perceived transgressions"
  • "and revitalize the earlier dynamics" -> "and revitalise the earlier dynamics"
  • "also recontexualising their motivations." -> "also recontextualizing their motivations."
    • British English uses s.
  • I am definitely going to have to oppose this because of the cast section and primary source issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octave

[edit]
  • For transparency, DWF contacted me off-wiki asking for a source review. This does not affect the content of my review.
  • I share the concerns about the guests section: per WP:CITE, a reference "should be added close to the material it supports". I don't see why this shouldn't be done here.
  • My main problem, though, is with page numbers. There are over 70 book sfns without page numbers—this is a very large portion of the total citations. The cited books, Dinnick (2011) and Smith (2013), each have over 350 pages. A lack of page numbers to this scale is unacceptable per WP:PAGENUM.
  • Unfortunately, based on these issues, I feel I must oppose on verifiability concerns, even without a full review. With apologies, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add the refs from the table. I'm still looking for the page numbers, as I only have some pages of the above books, and only know these books verify the info bcs of it being said in reliable sources. DWF91 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, are these citations in line with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 12:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet, I wasn't familiar this was a thing. I'll add it. DWF91 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, UpTheOctave!, your off-wiki help helped me find the pages. I have added refs to the cast, except Briggs, as the number of roles mean it would look like a ref-bomb. I have added page-numbers, and to allow easier searching, broken them into sections of 6-12, instead of 60-80. DWF91 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with those, but the oppose will stay for now as I'm concerned about the use of primary sources. Although there are some that are both independent and secondary, over 80% of the listed citations are to books and webpages by the producer, Big Finish Productions.
    • Per WP:PRIMARY, we should not "base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them"
    • Per WP:ABOUTSELF, self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, but only when "the article is not based primarily on such sources"
    How does this list abide by these policy sections? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have based almost all the actual prose on secondary independent sources- there are barely any secondary sources that mention all the production details. I have tried to find secondary sources, but basically almost no source mention the director. DWF91 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I was looking through some FLs, and for instance the 1980 summer olympics medal table, which got promoted yesterday- has 20/34 from primary/aboutself sources like the organising International Olympic Committee. DWF91 (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pretty big difference difference between <60% and >80%, but this may be verging on wiki-lawyering. I'm still skeptical about such a high volume of primary and aboutself sourcing, but I've struck my oppose since "redo the list" isn't exactly actionable criticism. I will now conduct a full review of sourcing although, in the best case, this will be a pass with reservations. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 09:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A pass with reservations at best would still be better than nothing. DWF91 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed diff/1277633845

Reliability

  • No issues, though see above

Consistency

  • Inconsistent date format in books (DMY vs MY)
    • Different refs are giving diff dates for the BF sources, so I went with what's written on the front page of them
      • In that case, I would recommend going with only MY for a consistent citation style
  • Inconsistent inclusion of episode number in Big Finish reference titles
    • I'm confused about what you mean?
      • Some reference titles include the episode number (e.g. refs 242 and 243), some do not (e.g. ref 23). Your inclusion or exclusion of this should be consistent
  • Inconsistent casing of reference titles
    • Done

Other comments

  • Citation bundling is causing duplication of references
    • Bundling is to show that the releases were part of the same storyline
  • MOS:CONFORM: normalise hyphens in reference titles to unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes
    • Done
      • You have used unspaced en (–) dashes, as above these should be spaced
  • MOS:CONFORMTITLE: episode names should be enclosed in double quotes, normalised to single quotes in reference titles
    • I don't think there is any episode name in double quotes in a ref
      • Sorry, this is confusing looking back. I meant that the episode names in citation titles should be put into single quotes per the above MOS section. Episode names would be in double quotes normally, but should be singled in a citation.
  • Consider using the volume parameter for books in the source list
    • I would prefer to keep as is
  • Page ranges should be pp. not p. They should also have unspaced en dashes, not hyphens
    • Done
  • Ref 1: missing date
  • Ref 18: neither the cited or archived versions are from this date
    • the site updated it, and kept the same url, fixed
  • Ref 30: page gives "Doctor Who: Project Destiny" without second colon
  • Ref 108: incorrect title
  • Refs 149–151: page gives dash instead of second colon, should normalise to an unspaced em dash or spaced en dash
    • Not done in ref 149
  • Ref 221: missing date
  • Ref 222: missing date
  • Ref 234: missing archive
  • Ref 244: not a dead link
  • Books 1: space after colon; link Paul Booth (media scholar)
  • Books 3: McFarland Publishing -> McFarland & Company
  • Big Finish Productions 1: link Richard Dinnick; remove space before colon
  • Big Finish Productions 6: remove space before colon
  • Doctor Who Magazine 1: link Alan Barnes (writer)
  • Doctor Who Magazine 2: link Clayton Hickman
  • Doctor Who Magazine 5: link Paul Neary
  • Doctor Who Magazine 6: link Tom Spilsbury
    • All above done

Last comments

  • The last sentence of § History is a bit lonely, could it be integrated into an earlier paragraph?
    • That's deliberate, plus I couldn't find a space it fits better
  • Eighth Doctor and Nicholas Briggs are duplinked in § History
    • Done, removed
  • Episode ranges in § Appearences should use unspaced en dashes
  • Done
  • Is there a link to the archival footage mentioned in § Notes a?
    • It being archival footage is mentioned in the ref- I didn't add it to the note, as it's pretty much inline
  • Ref 13: should be a page range
  • Ref 82: should be a page range
  • Doctor Who Magazine 6: year range should be an unspaced en dash
    • Done above 3
  • What is the inclusion criteria in the "Featuring" column? For the episodes I've glanced at, there's more characters listed than on the CD case, but less than the cast list
    • Mentioned on the CD cover, or in the plot sypnosis

Spotchecks

25% of listed citations (64)
  • Ref 8: how does this verify that 2001 saw the first time a companion originated in Big Finish itself?
  • Ref 12: pass
  • Ref 25: pass
  • Ref 27: (a) pass (b) characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 28: (a, b, c) pass (d) characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 32: pass
  • Ref 40: (a) pass (b) characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 41: pass
  • Ref 43: pass
  • Ref 48: pass
  • Ref 53: (a) pass (b) characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 57: (a) pass (b) characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 61: pass
  • Ref 62: pass
  • Ref 68: pass
  • Ref 70: pass
  • Ref 96: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 97: pass
  • Ref 98: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 99: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 100: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 105: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 106: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 107: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 110: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 113: pass
  • Ref 119: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 121: pass
  • Ref 124: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 125: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 132: pass
  • Ref 140: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 141: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 143: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 144: pass
  • Ref 147: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 150: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 152: pass
  • Ref 154: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 155: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 156: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 157: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 173: pass
  • Ref 185: pass
  • Ref 190: pass
  • Ref 195: pass
  • Ref 197: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 202: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 203: pass
  • Ref 205: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 206: pass
  • Ref 208: pass
  • Ref 217: pass
  • Ref 231: characters listed in "featuring" do not meet your inclusion criteria
  • Ref 235: I don't see how Big Finish already produced boxset ranges for the other Doctors is verified
  • Ref 236: how does this verify that the range was released under a new format?
  • Ref 237: ditto above
  • Ref 240: how does this verify that these are the first regular releases?
  • Ref 241: ditto above
  • Ref 242: how does this verify that this is a re-formatting of The First Doctor Adventures range?
  • Ref 243: how does this verify that this is a brand new The Second Doctor Adventures range?
  • Ref 244: how does this verify that these are a reformatting of The Third Doctor Adventures range?
  • Ref 247: how does this verify that these are volume 11 in The Fourth Doctor Adventures ongoing range?
  • Ref 250: how does this verify that these are first regular release in The Sixth Doctor Adventures range?

Thoughts

  • First round of comments above, will complete spotchecks soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done or replied to all changes. Thank you for such a comprehensive review. DWF91 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping, just in case- UpTheOctave!. DWF91 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay. New comments and replies above, spotchecks on hold until the last listed comment is answered. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything done or replied to, UpTheOctave!. DWF91 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've missed out my replies to the original batch (Consistency points 1 and 2, Other comments 2, 3 and 10). Spotchecks to come soon. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency 3 done, 2 done(for the BFP refs atleast, the other two sections consistently have dmy format, so I have kept them as is), 10 done, 2 done(i read that incorrectly before), 3-there are no titles in double quotes as far as I can see, the double quotes are bcs of the cite template, no editor has added quotes to any episode name. DWF91 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re date format, per WP:CITESTYLE this should be consistent throughout an article, not just a section, hence my suggestion to only use MY. Re quotes, I'm doing a really bad job of explaining this. Since each episode is the title of a minor work, you should add quotes to the references (e.g. Foo, Bar (n.d.) "'Episode name'") like you would if referring to an episode in prose ("Episode name"). UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The former is done, the latter I think is done, UpTheOctave!. DWF91 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful, now just the spotchecks. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks above. I have concerns about the inclusion criteria in the "Featuring" column; you state that those mentioned on the CD cover, or in the plot sypnosis are included, however I've found entries that ignore characters from CD covers, some that ignore characters in the plot summary, and some that pick arbitrarily from the cast list. Given the frequency of this, I think you should go through this column again to ensure consistency. Additionally, I am concerned about the sourcing in § Continuation, which worryingly doesn't seem to support the content. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I didn't describe the inclusion criteria probably- on the CD cover as in those followed by starring or those whose character name is given, for example all the "as Narvin" or "as Hex/Hector". And by plot synopsis, I meant recurring characters. Though I have questions of how tightened it should be- for example, should I include foes like "Fenric" or "Slitheen" which I did bcs they appeared in the show; should I include that meet the criteria later, for example "Flip" is not listed as starring in her introduction, but I have kept her, bcs she in the cast list and meets the criteria later; also I have listed real life characters such as Churchill or Cierco as starring- should I remove those?
    Sorry about the table, I summarised the prose in the paragraph before it and took the ref without removing it from the table- the source for "new" or "reformatting" was how many releases preceded the revamp releases, which is kinda synth. I mostly kept it bcs it was already in there- should I remove them, that part is not that important?
    Sorry for this mess of a list. DWF91 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologise:
    • Re inclusion criteria: any criteria is fine, as long as it is consistent. It doesn't make sense to include some characters in one entry, while excluding others that are listed similarly; if we don't apply a set criteria, then we are highlighting certain characters in a form of editorial bias. If I was writing this list, I think it would make sense to just list those on the CD covers: after all, these are either starring roles or listed as "featuring" by Big Finish.
    • Re Continuation: I would remove the third paragraph as this is interpretation of primary sources, which is not allowed by WP:PRIMARY. The table should be fine now as it is only giving straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.
    UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion criteria-done with that, and listed the criteria itself in the article.
    Continuation-removed the third paragraph. DWF91 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How are we defining characters who "appear across multiple stories": is this characters who appear more than once in the entire series? If so, at a glance I only see one instance of Irving Braxiatel, Alpha Centauri, Lysandra Aristedes, Liv Chenka, Omega and Izzy. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot that I didnt remove Alpha Centauri, should probably remove omega, aristedes is mentioned a bunch of times with her surname
    Brax, Chen and Izzy(as well as The Eleven)- should have added "in other mediums" in the note just like in the cast section. Sorry. DWF91 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm unfamiliar with the fine details of Doctor Who (although judging by my recent reviewing habits I'll soon be an expert), would it be possible for you to check through one last time to verify that all the entries meet this criteria? I really would appreciate it. Other than this, I think that's all the comments I have. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, done-removed all the fancruft in the list, it should be per criteria now (A lot of the issues were actually bcs of fancruft and expanded universe stuff, which I'm not an expert on either). Apologies, this list has been much of a mess bcs the topic itself of a mess of a thing. And I'm sorry in advance if there are still any issues remaining- there are a lot of edge cases in this list. DWF91 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last thing (I promise): the issue in the spotcheck for ref 8 is not solved. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 18:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was incorrect- it was originally in the article before I started, so I just added a ref to it without checking, assuming AGF. Fixed the year to 2000, with the ref saying "range's first original companion"; also added the actors playing her, and another character. Checked the prose that was there before I edited this for good measure. It's all fixed now. Thank you for the comprehensive review, I wouldn't have caught the incorrect info by myself. DWF91 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    also, ref numbers from 8 onwards have decreased by one with that change(prev 9 is now ref 8 and so), (the other removed refs didn't cause any changes bcs they were at the end) DWF91 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word for the consistency in listed characters. I think I can tentatively pass this review. Due to the primary sourcing I cannot offer my full support, but I will lend my name to the list's source reliability, formatting, and verification. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comprehensive review, and I'm really sorry what a mess it has all been. DWF91 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant, History6042 if the amount of primary refs is your only issue and nothing else, can you write that explicitly- something like "support on prose only": apparently that's needed for the prose to be considered reviewed? DWF91 (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only ON Prose. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant or mention that you do not suport on prose alone either, and maybe what should be done for you to support it- sorry, I don't know if the prev might be ambigous or not. DWF91 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the over reliance on primary sources Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, I meant is the prose fine? DWF91 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on overuse of primary sources per WP:PRIMARY: one should "be cautious about basing large passages on them" and should "not put undue weight on [their] contents" but many of the tables are solely based on them. There also other deficiencies: for sourcing, many (all?) of the cast under "Others" are not verified by the cited source, and much of the second paragraph of the lead is not cited anywhere (along with the bit about the boxsets in the final paragraph). For some prose issues: the "History" section needs to outline the background of the Doctor Who series, does not say what the Main Range is, and the concept of Big Finish Productions—not the series—steeping itself in "fan nostalgia" is unclear. The lead likely also devotes too little attention to the actual series. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much more about doctor who itself is irrelevant, main range is explained, much more about big finish is irrelevant, leads don't need cites if they are cited in the body. It's a very loosely connected series.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Doctor_Who:_The_Monthly_Adventures/archive1&oldid=1280509016"