The Star Beast (Doctor Who) is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) at 08:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

The Star Beast (Doctor Who) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Doctor Who Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance). BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Hi editors

Just posting some urls for advance reviews of this episode as they probably should be used in the article. I'll try to write them up in the article properly as well.

• Empire
• Dexerto
• Radio Times
• Hello!
• BBC News
• Cosmic Circus
• HeyUGuys
• Inverse
• GamesRadar/Total Film
• Collider

And the Rotten Tomatoes link is here

--TedEdwards 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add them? 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:C96:15F:5868:380B (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one source saying she is, ^[1]. Nothing else so far but mabye a case of the special came out two days ago, and there hasnt been enough discussing the character.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)

It's not always easy to define a companion. If it's someone who travels with the Doctor, she hasn't done that yet. Too early to say, really.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is not credited in the opening credits, thus that is why she is not listed as a companion here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noele Clark doesnt appear in the credits of Journey's End (Doctor Who) yet hes listed as a companion Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from primary sources, such as Russel T Davies, we need reliable secondary sources commonly and consistently labelling her as such. Sources such as DWM started calling Clark as a companion for that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using redirects in hatnotes per WP:HATNOTERULES. The very first basic rule of the guideline states Linking to redirects is typically not preferred. --woodensuperman 11:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for all those mentioning WP:NOTBROKEN, this is not the relevant guideline, as hatnotes are not mentioned in this section. Funnily enough, we should be deferring to WP:HATNOTE as the default guideline for hatnotes! --woodensuperman 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking via the redirects looks like the better option for readers in this case as the names are clearer and more concise than the section links. I'm not sure what the origin of the HOTNOTERULES guideline is, but it does explicitly say "exceptions can occur". Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions can apply to every guideline, doesn't mean we should without a very good reason. With the section links you know exactly where you are going, with a redirect in the hatnotes, it looks as if you will find an article on the subject, which falls foul of WP:SURPRISE! --woodensuperman 13:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote implies nothing about an article, only that the reader will find the content they are looking for at the target. The Star Beast (Doctor Who comic) and The Star Beast (Doctor Who audio drama) make that clearer than Fourth Doctor comic stories#Doctor Who Weekly and especially List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish#The Comic Strip Adaptations. There is no WP:SURPRISE violation here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can a redirect with a hidden target make something clearer than a link to the actual target which shows exactly where you are heading??? We have guidelines for a reason. --woodensuperman 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Woodensuperman here. The full text of that guideline line-item is "Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links. Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur. Links to disambiguation pages should always end in "(disambiguation)", even when that version of the title is a redirect.' I.e., it is making an exception for "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to make it clear to readers they will be going to a DAB page. While it arguably leaves open the possibility of some other exceptions being plausible, that doesn't mean any exception someone randomly wants to make can be "enforced" by someone with what amounts to a WP:ILIKEIT reason. These two particular redirects are confusing and unhelpful. They're being imposed to make the hatnote "look pretty", but they don't at all identify where the user will be taken, and the result is bewildering. It should be clear to the reader that they are going to a section on a series of things in an another article, in which they can expect to find what they are looking for. When you mislead them into thinking they're going to a dedicated article about what they are looking for, it just looks like an error. This is pretty much the sort of SURPIRSE that is meant at that page. And yes, NOTBROKEN has nothing to do with hatnotes; it's about running prose in article text. I would make an exception if we could expect eventual actual articles at either of "The Star Beast (whatever)" redirects, but this is extremely unlikely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following this template reversion, asking here: Is The Star Beast a regeneration story? I say no. The Doctor is fully regenerated when the episode begins, it does not immediately follow Power of the Doctor, and the regeneration process is not discussed. U-Mos (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after I saw The Meep, and how the others reacted to it, I couldn't help thinking of Galaxy 4. Lowlyeditor (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to review this in the next 7 days. — Bilorv (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

The major sections are all there and there's lots of positives with the number of reliable sources and groundwork that has been laid. I think the areas to focus on are "Plot", "Production" and "Critical reception":

• Per MOS:TVPLOT, the plot needs to be cut down from its current state (around 600 words) to 400 words. I think most or all of this can be done through rewording rather than loss of information. Two examples: "The UNIT squad and the Wrarths arrive, and a fight breaks out between them" could be "The UNIT squad and Wrarths begin fighting at Donna's house" and "The Doctor and Donna (the latter of whom is starting to remember her past)" could be "The Doctor and Donna, who is starting to remember her past". Look for strings of words like "the latter of whom" that don't provide information to rewrite.
• "An apparently crashing spaceship" – Is it not a crashing spaceship? Done
• "explains his confusion" – "explains" sounds like he has an answer; if not then maybe "describes" is better. Done
• "In July 2021, the BBC announced that Chris Chibnall, who served as executive producer and showrunner of the series since 2018, would leave the series after a run of specials in 2022" – This isn't obviously related to this episode. How about framing it like: "The episode was the first 2023 special, following the departure of executive producer Chris Chibnall and Thirteenth Doctor star Jodie Whittaker after the 2022 specials"? Done
• Does Rose have a specific age (in the episode or initially intended) other than "teenager"?

Nope

• Is Rose non-binary and using "she/her" pronouns and if so, can this be stated (and sourced)?

I couldn't find anything

• The "Production" section reads at the moment a bit too much like a list of press releases. I think interviews with cast and writers would help. Russell T Davies talks here about what made him, Tennant and Tate interested in doing Doctor Who again. A topic sentence for this might look like: "The episode was the first in which Tennant and Tate reprised their roles as the Doctor and Donna Noble since [X]".
• Some interviews that might prove useful in discussing themes of transgender and disabled inclusion: [2][3][4][5]
• I think the specials were the first premiering internationally on Disney+ and Russell T Davies says here that meant a higher budget. Done
• Without wanting to get into excessive details or minutiae, I wonder if this commentary contains any major revelations (if you use it, give rough timestamps for each inline citation so it's not very hard to verify). The first few minutes talk about filming constraints due to the Queen's Jubilee, which would be good to summarise. Same idea with this (shorter) "Behind the Scenes" video.

Unfortunately as am in America I can not access any BBC iplayer content. Though I will take a look at the other sources

• The "Critical reception" section gives me a flavour of what is out there in response to the transgender themes, but not these other key features: Davis/Tennant/Tate returning; the plot; the set design and directing etc. I'd like to see some more reviewer comments grouped by theme. The lead says critics "praised Tennant and Tate's reintroduction to the series along with the introduction of Rose, a transgender character" and "some were critical of the resolution to the metacrisis storyline" – maybe this could be the basis of two paragraphs? Done
• Are there any (mainstream, professional) reviews that compare the episode to the comic?

  A few would this go under critical reception? [6],[7],[8] and a couple others from a quick google search. Would it go under Writing or Reception I could see an argument for both?

  I think Den of Geek and Popverse could be used in "Writing". The Bleeding Cool source seems to take heavily from Doctor Who Magazine, which would be the better source to use if you can get access. — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "had now reached 9 million viewers officially" should just be "had reached 9 million viewers". Y
• "A novelisation of the episode ..." – This sentence needs splitting into two or more sentences (or rephrasing).  Done
• "over the portrayal of transgender" – This adjective is missing a word, like "[transgender] themes". Done
• "the i" (in the ratings box) should just be "i". Done
• (Not part of the GA criteria.) The references don't have a consistent formatting style e.g. saying the publication name "BBC" rather than the URL "www.bbc.com"; most website names are linked but not all are. Done

I'll look at source spotchecks, image licenses and copyright checks after the above are addressed. Formally this is on hold but that might be for longer than seven days as long as progress is being made. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: it's been 10 days and I see lots of small points have been fixed but there's still significant work to do on "Production" and "Plot" as well as some other areas. Would it be better to work on these issues with no time pressure outside the GA process and then resubmit it when it's ready? — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be great as something unforseen has happened in my personal life and I can't focus on two GA's currently Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fail for GA at this time, noting that a lot of the work towards GA standard has been done, but there's still outstanding issues that affect criteria #1 and #3. — Bilorv (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]