Talk:Doctor Who season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one for review. I have reviewed articles for some of the new seasons, so if this is as good as those ones then we shouldn't have a problem. I hope to get some feedback on the article for you in the next couple of days. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here are some points that I would like to see addressed before I promote the article to GA:

• The sentence "Formatting of the programme was handled by Newman, head of serials Donald Wilson, C. E. Webber, and Rex Tucker, as the initial character details were conceived" is confusing to me. I'm not sure who Webber and Tucker are (are the also heads of serials) and the last clause doesn't make much sense to me.
• The sentence "Throughout the season, the Doctor and his companions travel throughout history, visiting significant figures such as Marco Polo and events such as the Reign of Terror, as well as into the future, where they encounter alien creatures such as the Daleks and the Sensorites" should be re-written. At the moment it is a bit run-on-y and uses "such as" too many times.
• I would like to see the episode summaries expanded a bit. I would usually expect them to be closer to the "limit" at MOS:TVPLOT, which is 200 words, and that's for individual episodes rather than the multiple per summary that we have here. I think something between 150 and 200 for each story would be good.
• A few typos: "the story itself lacked the necessarily impact for an opener", "mostly notably"
• The release section should mention the actual release of the episodes (probably in their own section).

Have a go at those and let me know if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for the review! I've gone through and addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have any more issues. – Rhain ☔ 08:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, great work! I am happy to pass this review now, as this article meets all the criteria and my concerns have been dealt with (and very promptly too). Congratulations! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)