Talk:Doctor Who series 13/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one! I have experience with some classic Doctor Who season articles, so this should be interesting. Full disclosure: I have made a total of four edits to this article, three of which were maintenance or tagging. It appears that the nominator (ButterCashier) has not made a single edit to the article (which is discouraged per WP:GAN/I#N1) and primarily seems to have nominated this one simply because the other series articles are GA—regardless, I'll still be providing my thoughts.

Casting

This section (especially the first paragraph) seems to suffer from WP:OVERCITE: we don't really need three references for Jodie Whittaker's role, nor do we need two for Mandip Gill or Jacob Anderson. The ref about Walsh and Cole's departure seems unnecessary too, since this is mentioned in the next ref anyway.
I think it would be worth mentioning some of the other recurring actors and their characters—particularly Karvanista, Joseph Williamson, Diane, Swarm, Azure, Claire, Bel, Professor Jericho, and Grand Serpent. This would help avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE in the final sentence, too.
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.

Production

This whole section (especially "Development") suffers a little from WP:PROSELINE: it seems like information was added as the series was filmed and released, and now it struggles with consistency and relevance.
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.

Development

I struggle to see the relevance of the first paragraph; if it belongs anywhere, it would be in "Release".
"The thirteenth series was announced by showrunner Chris Chibnall to be in development in November 2019, before the twelfth series premiered"—awkward phrasing. Consider refocusing the sentence on the development, rather than the announcement: something like "The thirteenth series was in development by November 2019, before the twelfth series premiered."
The third paragraph is awkwardly phrased, probably because of when it was written. Be more explicit, but less detailed. "This was later announced to be shown as six episodes as part of the thirteenth series and two specials slated to air in 2022, with an additional special ordered for later that year as part of the BBC's centenary celebrations." → "Six episodes were designated to the thirteenth series, with the remaining two airing the following year." Drop the next sentence entirely.
"The six-episode series also tells..." → "The six-episode series tells..."
"this format was last used in The Trial of a Time Lord (1986)"—this is already stated above in "Episodes". It should definitely be mentioned, but only once.
That Chibnall quote is so long it should technically be a block quotation, per MOS:BQ. It should absolutely be paraphrased instead, though.
Fourth paragraph doesn't really have any relevance; it belongs in 2022 specials, not here. Maybe a quick sentence could work here (since their departure was announced during production on this series), but that's it.

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.
Replace the source for Maxine Alderton. Consider removing "core writer" altogether, since she was ultimately only credited for co-writing a single episode anyway.
First sentence of the second paragraph is messy; consider cutting it down to simply "Ed Hime and Pete McTighe, both of whom had written for the eleventh and twelfth series, were originally scheduled to write for the thirteenth". The Chibnall quote should also be paraphrased and/or significantly chopped.

Filming

If possible, this section should be expanded, particularly with filming locations (and dates if possible, though I'm doubtful).
I'd recommend looking for interviews with the directors for more information about filming. Good places to start: [1] [2] [3]
"Jamie Magnus Stone and Azhur Saleem directed episodes of the series, with Stone directing the first, second and fourth episodes, and Saleem directing the third, fifth and sixth episodes." → "Jamie Magnus Stone directed the first, second, and fourth episodes, and Azhur Saleem directed the third, fifth, and sixth."
{{Failed verification}} tag needs addressing.

Music

There's an interview with Akinola in the aforementioned Yearbook which may be relevant. If not, this section should be merged with "Development".

Release

Promotion

"the social media accounts for Doctor Who went offline"—they did a lot more than that, according to the source.
There's definitely more promotion to be mentioned here, even if it's just the behind-the-scenes content that was released.

Broadcast

"where the streaming service..." → "while the streaming service..." or something similar.
"In Australia episodes are released..."—change to past tense.

Home media

Expand this section with some prose; don't just rely on the table alone. See series 5.

Reception

This section is where the bulk of the problems lie; it's basically non-existent. Again, series 5 is a great example.

Ratings

A table is not enough; this section needs details. Add context to the viewership numbers, give some international figures, discuss the Appreciation Index. It's a pretty table, but it needs context. Two or three paragraphs should be fine, but one may be all you need (especially considering the length of this series).

Critical reception

This is barely a section; aggregate scores are absolutely not enough. There are plenty of reviews to use for the series overall, not to mention many reviews for each individual episode (though keep in mind not every review in those links are reliable). I want to know what individual outlets/reviewers thought about the performances, the stories, the characters, the music, the special effects. What did they like about it? What did they dislike? What did they want to see more or less of? A lot of expansion is needed here.

Awards and nominations

{{Citation needed}} tag needs addressing.

References

I'd highly recommend archiving every online source for preservation.
There's quite a bit of inconsistency among the references (based on this revision).
- Outlets are linked in some instances but not in others (refs 2, 4–8, 13, 16–19, 21–22, 25, 31–32, 39–42, 46–48).
- Some refs are missing author names (refs 6, 16, 32).
- BBC should not be italicised in ref 12.
- Ref 17 lists a publisher, whereas others don't (including other Radio Times refs).
- Ref 29 is incomplete.
- Refs 34 and 58 are missing information (date, publisher).
  - Ref 58 is also a dead link; it should link to this.
- There's a little too much reliance on fansites for my liking—Doctor Who News and Doctor Who TV in particular, but CultBox also looks like a WordPress fansite with few credentials and little editorial oversight. Look for alternative sources wherever possible.

Result

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Referencing issues discussed above. A few too many quotes, but certainly not plagiarism-level.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Production and Reception require far more coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I'd love to see some more images, especially considering the quality of free images of Whittaker, Gill, and Chibnall we have available.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Unfortunately, due to the amount of outstanding issues, I'm afraid I'll be failing this nomination. Production and Reception are simply too incomplete, and require significant expansion and overhaul to meet the good article criteria. I hope my comments have made clear how this can be achieved, but please let me know if you'd like me to expand on anything. I hope to see this article pass in the near future, and I have faith in the article's regular contributors to make this possible. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]