Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA4
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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
[edit]Lead
[edit]- The use of "This" rather than "It" to refer to the series is awkward and not replicated on other series articles.
A majority of filming
Is this a WP:ENGVAR thing or is the phrase missing a word?
Episodes
[edit]- 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.
Casting
[edit]Production
[edit]Release
[edit]Reception
[edit]References
[edit]- Layout: Nothing unusual to note here.
- 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.
- Original research:
Spot checking
[edit]Based on this revision:
- []
Scope
[edit]- Broad:
- Narrow:
Stability
[edit]- Neutrality:
- Edit warring: Very infrequent disruption, nothing in the scope of this review.
Images
[edit]- Licenses: Cover art attributed as fair use, rationale in place. Other images are CC BY 2.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0.
- 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.
Good Article review progress box
|
