This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 09:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Hello, thank you for submitting this article for GA consideration! It's been a while since I've done a review of this kind, but I'm happy to be "back in action". I'm going to take a look at the article and share my thoughts as soon as possible! Oltrepier (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• This looks good! Maybe, I would just replace "BBC1" with "BBC One" for consistency, but it's just a pet peeve...  Done

• Just to be clear, articles about movies and specific episodes don't need any direct citations, do they? I admit I don't have much experience with these topics...
  • Per MOS:PLOTCITE
• Anyway, this should be alright, too; maybe, just a few minor fixes are needed ("On Christmas Eve of 1992", "in 2016, together with Nardole", "it would fall on New York"). It could be useful to add a wiki-link to the "TARDIS", as well.  Done

• The opening phrase in the "Filming" paragraph could use a smoother connection ("was directed by Ed Bazalgette, who had previously served as director for series 8 episodes...")  Done
• I would make a few minor corrections at the phrase "in New York City; ultimately, fabricated sets were built".  Done
• Just to avoid redundancy, I would connect some phrases at the start of the "Writing" paragraph, like this: "Although the story was developed as a loose sequel to the 2015 Christmas special, "The Husbands of River Song", the episode featured very few Christmas elements."  Not done
  • I feel as if the wording was somewhat misleading as it implies that THORS had more Christmasy elements

• Ditto for "It contains several references to comic books, most prominently Superman, of whom Grant has roughly the same standard powers, including flight, super-strength, super-speed, being bulletproof, and possessing X-ray vision."  Done
• The phrase about Nardole in the "Casting" paragraph sounds a bit fuzzy... Could you re-word a bit more clearly, please?  Done
  • Within Doctor Who "companion" refers to a specific type of characters that travel with the Doctor. previously Nardole was just there.

• Just a few minor fixes needed at the "Critical reception" paragraph, in my opinion ("praising the performance of Peter Capaldi and describing the episode", "out of a possible five, saying that Capaldi [...], and that Matt Lucas", "a positive review of the episode, writing that", "In a milder review, IGN wrote that the episode was 'a lightweight entry'").  Done

• All of the refs should be alright! Just make sure that every link is accompanied by an archived URL, so they're not at risk of being lost forever overnight.
• The Copyvio Detector reported a possible violation of the IGN source, but that seems to be largely based on casual repetitions of the episode's title, so don't worry about it!

@OlifanofmrTennant: Ok, here are my thoughts... finally. I must say that, despite not being familiar with Doctor Who at all, it was a very nice read, and the article generally looks good, aside of my previous suggestions. Sorry again for being so late in reviewing this. Oltrepier (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: I've done a few minor corrections myself, but I think we're finally good to go. Thank you for submitting this article, and for agreeing to review mine! Oltrepier (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]