Wikipedia:Peer review/Doctor Who series 15/archive1

Doctor Who series 15

I've listed this article for peer review because Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who is trying for a GT, and for that all series need to be GA or FA. As this series is yet to be released, it would need a PR to qualify for the GT. Any remarks are fine, as the article probably does not have any problems.

Thanks, DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What's with the rush? Why not just wait until this series is released? This article has far to go before it can be considered "done". -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is almost a Good Topic of the seasons of the revived era (only the List of Episodes needs to be an FL, which it almost is now), so per WP:GT?#3c, articles which cannot get GA or FL need a complete quality check. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from LEvalyn

Taking a look primarily at the prose, I have some comments:

• I found As with the changes introduced from the previous series a bumpy read -- maybe cut this phrase?
  • Changed
• The clause having previously worked on it from 2005 to 2010 dangles wrong -- grammatically it conveys the season has previously worked, but of course it's Davies who worked.
  • Removed a comma
• This is a lot of explanatory clauses all in a row: This will be the second series to star Ncuti Gatwa as the Fifteenth Doctor, an incarnation of the Doctor, an alien Time Lord who travels through time and space in the TARDIS, a time machine which appears to be a British police box from the outside. What about "This will be the second series to star Ncuti Gatwa as the Fifteenth Doctor, an alien Time Lord who travels in a time machine known as the TARDIS which appears to be a British police box from the outside" ?
  • Changed in a diff way(closer to the series 14 version)
• This is perplexing: The briefcase takes control of Joy, but the Doctor finds a strange device inside about to disintegrate Joy, when a Doctor from the future arrives from the Time Hotel with the required code.. Should "but" be "and"? Can this be broken into two sentences?
  • Changed to and, and seperated with a semicolon
• This also feels like an "and" rather than a "but": The Doctor is able to open it, but Joy lets the star seed enter her.. You could also be a bit more concise by changing "is able to open" to just "opens".
  • Changed to "opens", but is correct
• The whole casting section feels like too much blow-by-blow, emphasizing announcements over the cast itself. Rather than focusing on the press releases as the "events", can you aim for the retrospective framing used in the series 13 article?
  • Series isn't released yet, so can't be retrospectively framed yet
• Since filming has concluded, can the TBAs in the production blocks be updated?
  • They haven't been revealed yet (though might be soon)
• The stuff about distribution in China feels like it belongs in "Release" rather than development -- and I think you can cut the whole phrase In May 2017, it was announced that.
  • Done

Overall, it certainly feels like the article contains all the information currently known about this series, with a solid foundation for expansion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, replied to all comments DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999 Comments

-"This will be the second series to star Ncuti Gatwa as the Fifteenth Doctor, an incarnation of the Doctor, an alien Time Lord who travels through time and space in the TARDIS, which appears to be a British police box from the outside" Make sure the summary is sourced.

-Rest looks good as a base for what's to come. Can't say much more since most of this article will not have more content for a good few months. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this review. The above statement is technically partially sourced, and the rest is implicit because of the show itself, I have never seen that sourced, because it does not need it, given that it does not come under the 4 cases listed under WP:Verifiability. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Octave's comments

Seeing as we're at PR, I'll give this a "source review à la FAC." Feel free to ignore some of the points, as they may be too stringent if your final destination is GA.

At the moment, the final destination is a GT

Reviewed special:diff/1273102218

Reliability

• Ref 28: not strictly a reliability issue per se, but is there any reason to use an ABOUTSELF source instead of a secondary source here?
  • Can't find a secondary source with all the info it's verifying yet
• Ref 30: I'm generally opposed to seeing WP:VALNET sources in GAs/FAs, especially after the 2023 layoffs. I've also found a source contradicting this one: Radio Times says filming ended two days later.
  • Yeah, the primary source say 25, this says 26 and Screenrant says 24- it'll be changed close to broadcast, as that info would be in more sec sources probably

Consistency

• Inconsistent use of title and sentence case
  • FAC criteria, not doing yet
• Inconsistent archiving, suggest running IA Bot
  • That would be done before GA
• Inconsistent use of access date parameter, missing from refs 4 and 28
  • Done
• Use either "Deadline Hollywood" or "Deadline", not both
  • Made consistent
• Are we using {{cite press release}} or {{cite web}} for the BBC Media Centre sources?
  • Changed to cite web

Other comments

• Ref 1: shouldn't this be in the source section like the other magazines?
  • That's for consistency with series 14 article, plus it's a FA criteria
• Ref 4: wrong date, missing author
  • Done
• Ref 5 and 18: merge duplicate references and use single quote marks inside title
  • Done
• Ref 11: switch to surname, forename
  • Done
• Ref 32: reduce allcaps to normal text
  • Done
• Biblio 6: Quinn 2024d is giving a harv error as it is not used ("Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFQuinn2024c.")
  • Done, accidently wrote some as 2024b(you meant 2024c, I believe, as 2024d was already being used)

Spotchecks

• Refs 4 and 5: inaccurate, these announce that Nicola Coughlan would appear in Doctor Who, not that she would be Joy
  • changed to "the companion"
• Ref 7: pass
• Refs 8 and 9: pass
• Ref 11: pass
• Ref 16: pass
• Ref 20: pass
• Ref 27: pass
• Ref 31: pass

Thoughts

• Just a few minor issues. I'm AGFing the offline sources, but I've already checked 25% of the references so it should be fine. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, UpTheOctave!. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Closing this peer review, as all parts have been reviewed and issues replied to or fixed. Thank you to everyone who reviewed it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)