Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA2

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

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant, let me know your comments on the source issues below. I think it'll be tough to get this article to GA without resolving them, and fixing the issues might end up requiring some sizable modifications to the article, so I'll hold off on the rest of the review until the sources are settled. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the whatcultrue source as its unreliable. Doctor Who News inst a great source but from what I have seen they typically accurate, with that being said I'll look for some alternatives. I have removed the episode citations, blogtorwho and David Tennant news are both bad sources which I think should be removed however they are the only two sources with that information, shannonsullivan has been removed, and BBC soundtrack has been tagged as dead. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If an unreliable source is the only place with a piece of information you can find, the information should be removed from the article as well unfortunately. Given what you say about Doctor Who News, unless we can make a good case for its reliability, I think it and the corresponding information should be removed too. You could also try asking at WP:RSN about Doctor Who News specifically to see if we can get a consensus. I'm still seeing "David Tennant News" used (cite #96). Any luck finding alternate sources for the many DVD/home video release dates? —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found information regarding Doctor Who News. Its a sucsessor to the Outpost Gallifrey news time. Outpost Gallifrey was seen as reliable until it was shut down. They do have restriction as to who can publish an article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. that was a while ago, and I'm unconvinced by Doctor Who News' website, which suggests that most of their staff are unpaid volunteers. It's essentially a large and well established fansite, not a journalistic endeavor. However, I would recommend posting a question about this at WP:RSN - if consensus there disagrees with me, I'm happy to accept it here. Without that, though, I think it'd be tricky to get to GA relying so heavily on Doctor Who News. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened it and it seems like its not bery good and should be removed. I will be doing so now. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Whatever you can do to find reliable sources (most likely the BBC or a TV industry publication) to replace the removed information would be great! Let me know when you've finished making changes and would like me to take another look. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If content is removed due to Doctor Who News being determined as unreliable by one editor, I will happily participate in a discussion to restore the content with the same source, as it will pull this article out of sync with every related article. Have there been any cases or evidence in which the site has been unreliable? Also, concerning MOS:DUPLINK, links are allowed to be introduced in each season, so unless the duplicate links are repeated per section, then I see no issue. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was others it was put up at a notice board were others deemed in non-relaible. If you open up another post about it I would be willing to rediscuss it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21, the nominator is referring to this RSN discussion. Based on my personal judgment and the comments there, I don't think we can treat Doctor Who News as a reliable source. Other pages may or may not use it, but for GA standard, it's not suitable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that RNS discussion has not concluded, nor does it have any clear consensus. The use of this particular website as a source has paseed no less than twelve GA reviews, and is in use in 71 good articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add to the WP:RSN discussion, but I am not persuaded by the website's use in other articles. Their website describes their "news team" as volunteers. I don't see other reliable sources describing them as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as WP:RS should. I see a large and well-organized fansite, and while that's fine in some cases, it's not what I see as being at the GA standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do you intend to re-assess the other 11 season articles that all use this site and have met GA, and the 58 remaining other GA articles that use this site? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but feel free to raise them yourself at WP:GAR if you want. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or removing the information if it is supported by other sources. Even if it is decided to keep Doctor Who News. Why did you revert the additional sources being added Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oversourcing. The ratings for all 874 episodes of Doctor Who are sourced through Doctor Who News; there is no need for oversourcing. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sourcing, I see you've replaced a number of cast sources with DoctorWho.TV; overreliance upon primary sources (as DoctorWho.TV is the official BBC website for the programme) instead of secondary sources, as per Wikipedia's preference for secondary sourcing, may cause other editors to re-evaluate this GA once again. Replacing one non-consensual sourcing problem with a policy-tangent sourcing problem is not the way to go about a GA. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it becomes and issue I am sure there are a number of sources that can be used to replace them. You say all episodes are sourced by Doctor Who News, assuming there aren't sources that say the same thing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have a problem with using the producer of the TV series as a reliable source on its cast. Primary sources cause issues when they lead to WP:OR or are misinterpreted or taken out of context by editors. There's nothing interpretable about the cast of a TV show. I would appreciate if you would let the nominator and I work on the review together. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't believe there's any such rule stating that only the nominator and reviewer can contribute to a GA discussion. Are you attempting to kick me out of this? I'd typically consider that bordering on WP:PA and WP:OWN, but given that I recognize you're newer here, I'll let it slide.
Per the WP:PST policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Since this GA review began, a primary source has been added to this article twelve times. That's extensive. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the primary sources I could look for non-primary sources I'm sure their there. May I suggest that the review I put on hold until a proper discussion can happen as to the quality of doctor who News l. Also the discussion was archived so you'd have to start a new lnr Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as much a problem with the sources themselves, it is a problem with fixing an apparent unconfirmed sourcing problem with a vaster policy-borderline sourcing problem. Doctor Who News needs to be confirmed as an unreliable source first, and that needs a far greater discussion than one GA if it's already used in 71 other GA's. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the other GA reviews discuss the site? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OlifanofmrTennant - I apologize for the confusion. The fact is, that there's only one reviewer at a time, and I am the reviewer right now. While Alex 21 is trying to be helpful, I'm afraid they are simply muddling the matter by giving you contradictory advice. The GA process is based on the idea of a single reviewer assessing the article against the GA criteria, and the nominator + others making changes in response. My assessment is that Doctor Who News is not reliable and should be removed, and that using the BBC as a source for casting is absolutely fine. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put the review on hold for a day or two until the issue is resolved; we cannot have multiple "reviewers" giving advice at cross purposes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, OlifanofmrTennant, I don't know. I simply ran a search of articles that include both "doctorwhonews" and "good article" in the article (indicating the use of {{good article}}), and returned with 71 results. The contents of those GA reviews, however, is not something I've looked at individually. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alex 21: don't be snide, it's not productive. Multiple people are welcome to contribute to a GA discussion, but there is only one reviewer at a time. If you would like to help fix issues I mention, please feel free to assist. But it's unfair to the nominator to ask them to follow your advice and my advice simultaneously, especially as we disagree. That is simply confusing. I began this review. I will be finishing the review, one way or another, and determining whether or not to pass the article as a GA. You are welcome to improve the article and fix issues I mention. But again, there is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Third editor giving contradictory advice during GA review, I have been well within my right to provide the comments that I have been, so I would recommend that you change your viewpoint here. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to act as a co-nominator, you are very welcome to do so. If we cannot come to a consensus on this source and related issues, the review will likely have to be failed, unfortunately. My opinion has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News, and it doesn't look like the WP:RSN thread is likely to come to a different consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, with regards to MOS:DUPLINK, I don't think we are referring to the same thing. Generally, a link each in the lead, the body, and any embedded lists are enough. There are issues here - to start with, both Christmas special and The Christmas Invasion are linked twice in the lead alone. As mentioned, I recommend the tool User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to identify these problems. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opened discussion at GAN talk page[edit]

Hi! I've opened a discussion at the GAN talk page, here. Please participate in the discussion there. The review is on hold until the issue is resolved. My view is that we cannot have multiple reviewers giving contradictory advice. There is only one reviewer at a time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion[edit]

See some related discussion here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant, @Alex 21, as I mentioned, I'm going to give it another day, but my view has not changed on the reliability of Doctor Who News. Therefore, this review will likely fail, unfortunately. However, there is no reason not to make improvements, re-nominate, and try your luck with a different reviewer. @OlifanofmrTennant, thank you for your improvements thus far to the article during the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: I created a thread and invited you to participate, which you did do. I put out a request message in your talk page reaching out directly, you refused to participate and archived the discussion. You have been rather avoident of adressing the source. Your whole arguement has boiled down to "Its been used before so its fine". A small scale consensus was reached on the initall thread. You have refused to elaborate your point and claimed and have cause the review to be dragged out. Repetedly throught the whole situation you have claimed WP:SENIORITY. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this review was unsuccessful due to an inability to come to agreement on changes to be made. The review is closed with no prejudice against renomination. I encourage the nominators to improve the article further and renominate at a future date. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • No major uncited passages or tables. Source reliability handled at 2b. Pass 2a. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • I think source review here will be tricky.
  • Can you make a case for Doctor Who News (doctorwhonews.net) being a reliable source?
  • Can you make a case for Doctor Who Information Network (dwin.org) being a reliable source?
  • For current cites #41-43 (citing the episodes), I'm not sure of the proper way to cite a work of fiction directly for plot elements, so I'll check that and see what the applicable policy is.
  • What's the case for shannonsullivan being a reliable source? Appears to be the personal website of a superfan.
  • I'm skeptical about all of the DVD release date cites, especially the ones tagged as dead. Is this information not available from the BBC somewhere? Resellers may or may not have accurate information.
  • Can you make a case for WhatCulture being a reliable source?
  • Can you make a case for David Tennant News being a reliable source?
  • How about Blogtor Who? Seems unlikely to be reliable.
  • The last source (BBC soundtrack) has a good archive link, but the primary URL leads to a generic redirected page. Please see if you can find an updated non-archive link if possible, or mark the primary URL as dead. This is worth checking for a lot of the older sources.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig flags one issue, but the source acknowledges lifting from Wikipedia, so no copyvio problem there (but worth checking for circular citation). Hold for manual spotcheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • One fair use image, one classic CC2.0 image - no issues. Pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Any very minor tweak to second caption can be handled in prose review.
  • I think this image from Piper's page could be added to this article.
    • I have added it under casting, I'm not sure about the caption but I think the one I chose is good.
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_2/GA2&oldid=1216786810"