Talk:The Giggle

The Giggle has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Wikipedia.

The Giggle is part of the "Doctor Who specials (2023)" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal 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

	Television portal 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:

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Giggle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the review for this one. It's very well written, so I don't think it will have many, if any, issues. I'll list the issues in around half an hour. Best of Luck. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

head of UNIT → Head of UNIT/UNIT head or something similar (if the grammar seems correct to you, leave it be) Done

Ratings

Use another reference for the overnight ratings(maybe the TV Zone one linked in the next sentence). Keep the DWN one for now, bcs AI is only given there Done
Replace the DWN reference for consolidated ratings, with a more realiable one(perhaps the Barb Audiences one used on the series article page) Done

Remarks

Just mentioning CultBox and Doctor Who News Page and other similar websites, in case there are issues later regarding them, so that the review isn't called into question. Doesn't need any changes at the given moment

Result

Great work done on the page, I have checked it three times and these are the only issues I could find. Good Luck. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 I've made the requested changes. Let me or Oli know if any more work needs to be done on the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine this way too, but can either of you add another reference (just link the TV Zone or Radio Times one) to the overnight ratings alongside DWN, I feel like that would be better. I'll pass the article in around twelve hours either way(prefer not to at the moment, as I think I should let the review to atleast be active for 24 hours, plus I'm on mobile), User:Pokelego999, User:OlifanofmrTennant - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 Done. I've removed the AI for now since there's no source I can find for it for the time being but I did add the Radio Times reference to back up the TV Zone source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick and proactive, informally passing for now, will do so formally in 8-10 hours. Congratulations to both of you - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting to say that regarding the change from 'head of UNIT' to 'Head of UNIT', this goes against MOS:JOBTITLES. I undid the change citing this policy but I have been reverted, which is why I'm adding this comment here instead. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, can you or someone else change it back. I'll do so myself, mention that in the edit summary, and then pass it formally in twenty minutes if no one else does. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it, and mentioned why and that I'm the reviwer. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

The article meets all the GA criteria completely and is passed. Very well done and Congratulations, User:Pokelego999, and User:OlifanofmrTennant, the article was very well written and passed easily — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]