Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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: [1][2][3][4]
• 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? [5],[6],[7] 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]