This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: British Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Doctor Who High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I took this from the GA review and will remove topics as they are adressed.

• More behind-the-scenes information about the casting and characters would be good, too. Here's a video about Dan, which is a good place to start.

• It's also largely based around announcements instead of information: "[person] wrote/directed/starred in [episode]", instead of e.g. "[person] focused the story on the relationship between [X and Y]". There's a whole playlist of behind-the-scenes content that would be a goldmine for this stuff. The Doctor Who Magazine Yearbook also looks ripe with information.

Writing

• I know Chibnall was notoriously quiet when it came to discussing his work, but this section could really benefit from some actual information about the writing process and decisions. Series 5 is probably the best example of this. Right now, the section basically just lists writers and would-be writers.

Problems left as of Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Updated- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 13/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the coming days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this has been open for a week without remarks, and you have also taken Pyramid of Mars, and you are busy over the next few days, Pokelego999. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria 1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

@DoctorWhoFan91:

-Looks good

-Hyperlink tradesman

-Include a Wikitionary link to paramour, since that's not a common word

-You can probably use "protect" instead of "ensconces"

Did all

-Looks good

-Capitalize COVID

-"with him and Whittaker turning down other job offers to make it work: times when the series was not going to be made and even one hour, at the least, when the series had effectively been axed." Reword, colon bit I don't think is grammatically correct at a glance.

-The two paragraphs discussing Alderton should be merged together

-"Stone stated in an interview that directing for the series felt different, because of the serialisation, and the lockdown." No need for the commas here.

-Hyperlink and italicize Doctor Who Magazine

Did all

-Looks good

-Looks good

-"Some reviewers also felt that the villains were built up as Big Bads, but are then easily dispatched in the end. The Flux is also mentioned, and how it seems no one, not even the Doctor, seem to care about the destruction to space and life that has been caused due to its effect." Reword, pretty informal wording. I'd also attribute this to multiple sources so it doesn't seem as OR-y.

Reworded. It is already attributed to two sources

-Episode 6 is phrased with both words and numbers in the same paragraph.

fixed

-" with an all-time classic episode in "Village of the Angels"." Reword, seems like close paraphrasing.

added quotation marks, there are only so many ways to say that sentence

-Why are Digital Spy and Screen Rant separated when they're saying the same things?

They were ranking all the series of the revived era- added it in article

-Overall looks pretty solid, mostly minor gripes. Will hit up the spotcheck once the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999, replied. Is the depth fine- bcs the last reviewer thought so, so just needed the clarification. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I have no issues with length, since I'm aware this era was a bit more scarce on BTS info, and there's enough here to get a decent picture of what was going on. Will get to the spotcheck in a little bit. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 reviewing twenty random sources:

61, 38, 54, 76, 30, 86, 8, 88, 89, 23, 40, 33, 71, 55, 58, 48, 90, 80, 68, 81.

-What is the reliability of Amazon as a primary source (61, 58)

-I can't verify the DWM refs, but I trust they're accurate given the rest of the spotcheck.

-Why is Ref 81 using a Twitter post? (Also used for 79) To my knowledge the person isn't involved with the series, and the account has a disclaimer that it's for personal and not professional use, so it doesn't have much journalistic credibility in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon- they are product listings, so they should be reliable about the contents of the stuff they are selling

Mzimba- he is the only source that mentions it. He is involved with the BBC, and has been also been with the show(though very long ago). While it's for personal use, the BBC would have made him take it down if the data was incorrect, so I think the info has credibility (though only implicitly).

DWM- I could send you the text verifying the info if you want, though AGFing is definitely easier.

@Pokelego999: thank you for the review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 Is there a source verifying the Mzimba connection? Otherwise I'd suggest removing it, as it falls under Wikipedia:OR given the amount of assumptions being made if there isn't a source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he is a BBC journalist tweeting about a BBC show with numerical information, there really aren't a lot of assumptions being made, or any ambiguity. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 I have added "acc to Lizo Mzimba" in the text. Also, the other refs, which use Radio Times also say that their info came from Mzimba sharing it on Twitter, so I think that should be enough for it to be considered reliable. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I'd much rather use the Radio Times refs if they're just using the same information. I'm unsure of Mzimba's individual reliability, and though likely accurate, I'd rather be 100% certain with a reliable source that has fact checking policies in place. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any sources for two of these epsiodes though, that's the issue. I scoured both Digital Spy and Radio Times, using both google search and browsing through doctor who articles on these sites- nothing is mentioned for the last two epsiodes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 based on the discussion in the Discord, I'm willing to somewhat reluctantly accept it. If it's deemed alright by other users, I'm fine with accepting it, though I still am a bit iffy on it personally. Given there's no other outstanding issues, I'll pass this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Doctor Who series 13 was filmed entirely under COVID conditions?

• ALT1: ... that all episodes of Doctor Who series 13 were written by showrunner Chris Chibnall due to COVID? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-series-13-writer-directors-newsupdate/
• ALT2: ... that Doctor Who series 13 told only a single story, the first time for the show since 1986? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-series-13-serial-newsupdate/
• Reviewed:

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: New enough, long enough. Hook facts are cited and interesting. Earwig gives no issues. No QPQ required, but with your current rate that won't be true long. Good to go!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]