Talk:Doctor Who series 11/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Viewer ratings

Since this is coming up often, do note that you can't include rotten tomatoes ratings and use that as a proxy for what the general viewer thinks about the show. Rotten tomatoes numbers are a primary source and, if you want to include their numbers, you need to find a reliable secondary source that discusses those ratings. --regentspark (comment) 23:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It obviously follows from this that the critics ratings shouldn't be included either in the absence of a proper secondary source. I have duly removed these from the article. Thanks for pointing this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.102.18 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Critics are considered reliable secondary sources. Audience scores are user generated and aren't considered as reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You've missed the point. Rotten Tomatoes numbers are a primary source and so cannot be included unless there exists a reliable secondary source discussing them. Do you have such a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.102.18 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You really need to understand the difference between primary sources and secondary sources.
Primary sources: works of fiction, people, events, user generated content, etc.
Secondary sources: newspapers, journals, documentaries, review aggregators, etc.
Rotten Tomatoes itself is considered a secondary source. User generated content, such as the user scores on Rotten Tomatoes, is considered a primary source. To put it more clearly, Rotten Tomatoes is a secondary source that is reporting on critics' reviews (in this context, the critics' reviews are considered the primary sources that Rotten Tomatoes is covering), whilst the user scores themselves are primary sources because they're considered an event (ie, the general population are not considered reliable secondary sources because they're not universally known for fact-checking and/or peer review).
From WP:USERG: Although review aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not.
DonQuixote (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are primary sources when you want them to be and secondary sources when you don't. Thanks, but since that's obvious bullshit, I'm ignoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.102.18 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Continue to ignore it, and you may just be reported and blocked for edit-warring. Actually read DQ's comments and the relevant policies and guidelines, and you might understand the definition of sources. -- /Alex/21 09:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No, ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are primary sources when they're from the general public--a la Letters to the Editor. Encyclopaedias never cite sources like those unless they're the subject of the article.
Seriously, it's not that hard. Articles from a known reliable source can be used as secondary sources. Adverts printed in the same source are always primary sources. Things from the general public, like Letters to the Editor or User Scores, will never be used as secondary sources because they are not considered reliable and will always be considered as primary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this discussion, IMHO this discussion has little purpose, as the IP is only do this to try to make a WP:POINT, so will only refute any policy or guideline their told. They are only doing this to try and get the paragraph they wrote about the user reviews onto the article. However, I will ping regentspark, so they can clarify what they actually meant in their above statement to the IP, in the hope it might prevent the IP from causing more disruption when they are unblocked. --TedEdwards 15:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did mean only the audience ratings are primary sources. Not an expert on this but, collected critic ratings would be tertiary, right? The larger point is that we can only use user generated audience ratings (or any user generated content for that matter) when they are embedded in an analysis of those ratings in a reliable secondary source. The raw number is meaningless.--regentspark (comment) 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There must be better than this

It seems a failing of wikipedia if there isn't some way of noting the staggering disjunction between the critical reviews (92%, jesus christ) and reality. I noticed in the archives someone saying that 'youtube isn't a reliable source'...isn't it the case that youtube is a platform, and individual channels on there may well be RSs (at least for some uses)? There should be something we can do, this is just pathetic. 86.183.35.248 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You can cite a reliable source known for fact-checking, peer-review or some other universally accepted method of maintaining a high enough confidence level suitable for use in a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fan reaction missing

For me, it is really strange, that there is a Rotten Tomato number by critics, but the wiki say nothing about the fans opinions. Both in Rotten and Metacritic the fan's numbers are low and at IMDB also each episode between 5.1 and 7.1 (not counting the Christmas Special with the 12th). Ok, the views are not bad, but Game of Thrones's last season have millions of views and was still bashed. Also there are some articles only, that fans leaving the series (like this: Why this longtime fan is leaving Doctor Who or this: Why Doctor Who Has Completely Divided Fans This Season). And also, the critics were not that happy with it, as 92% is said, it is "good", but Rotten Tomatoes is misleading, because if a critic give a 90% and the other 60%, both goes to the "Positive" category, but there are a lot of difference between really good and mediocre/middle. For example, in one gaming site: 100-90%: really great game; 90-80%: good, with some small problems; 80-70%: It have some good sides, but there are problems; 70-60%: If you really waited it or it is your only game-type, probably, but others don't try it; 50-0%: they are avoidable. So, 90% is not equal with 60%, but Rotten Tomato say yes. hph01 (talk) 21:45 08 August 2019 (CET)

See WP:USERG. Also, see this page's talk page archives. DonQuixote (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Total viewers ratings

Just glanced at the notes for the total viewers numbers. Episodes 1, 2, 3, and 4, all appear to be 0.001m more in the table than the numbers add up to. Not a big difference obviously, but wondering if there was a reason for that or if I should just change it? e.g. for episode one "total viewers: 10.535m on TV, 234k on PC, 110k on Tablet, 80k on Smartphone" adds up to 10.959m, but the table has it as 10.96m. Same for the other three (but all remainder are correct). Only looked at the numbers for total viewers.Frond Dishlock (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's probably been rounded to two decimal places. DonQuixote (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Rounding. The three decimal place values are also direct from BARB. Episode tables always take two-decimal place values. -- /Alex/21 05:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • Infobox looks good.
  • Lead is also in great shape.

Episodes

  • "on board" → "onboard"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" is 223 words, so try shortening it per MOS:TVPLOT.
 Done episode 1 now 191 words. Chompy Ace 22:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the group locate" → "the group locates"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the group learn" → "the group learns"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "offspring to" → "offspring of"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "Graham, Yasmin".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "space-station" → "space station"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "removes it".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "group arrive" → "group arrives"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "staff have" → "staff has"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "Yasmin, Ryan".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Witchfinders" is 210 words, so try shortening it per MOS:TVPLOT.
 Done episode 8 now 187 words. Chompy Ace 22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "during 1612" → "in 1612"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Afterwards" → "Afterward"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Casting

  • Remove the comma after "later in 2017".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Matt Lucas or Pearl Mackie" → "Matt Lucas nor Pearl Mackie"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "Ryan Sinclair".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything else is really well-sourced.
 Already done Chompy Ace 04:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

  • Improve the non-free rationales for both images with this template.
 Not done images have been removed due to the template says No purpose specified. Please edit this image description and provide a purpose.; both images placed in prose rather than infobox. Chompy Ace 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I've restored the images with the linked template and a specified purpose; images are not required to be in the infobox to have a purpose. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 03:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Feels weird to have both #Music and #Soundtrack sections. Could they be merged?
 Done merged Chompy Ace 04:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Release

  • "web site" → "website"
 Done Chompy Ace 04:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Add commas after "Cole, Chibnall", "Kazakhstani", and "Cole, Walsh".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the commas after "October 2018" and "Sundays was a first in the programme's history".
 Done Chompy Ace 04:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception

  • This section looks good.

Soundtrack

  • This section also looks good so a merge with #Music doesn't seem too complicated.
 Done moved to #Music Chompy Ace 04:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I've re-separated this section back out for conformity with the past ten series articles (or twelve, given the specials), which all have their own separate Soundtrack sections at the end of the article. -- /Alex/21 08:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_11/Archive_2&oldid=1222082509"