Talk:Rogue (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 11:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one, it has been sitting here for weeks! Most of my edits have been regarding Doctor Who, so I'm looking forward to reviewing this one. Expect remarks in 6-7 hours. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• It was simultaneously released on Disney+ in the United States on 7 June 2024 and on BBC iPlayer in the United Kingdom on 8 June. It was also broadcast the same day on BBC One. → It was simultaneously released on BBC iPlayer in the United Kingdom and Disney+ in the United States and everywhere else at 2300 UTC (US-7 June, UK-8 June). It was also later broadcast the same day on BBC One. Mention iPlayer and BBC One together and Disney+ after to make sentence less confusing  Done

Plot

• accidentally interrupts a love confession between her and another man. Ruby comforts Emily → bit confusing, add failed love confession or something better  Done
• believing him to be a Chuldur → believing him to be a Chuldur (because the Doctor is a shapeshifter)  Done

Development

• Ref-7: Redirects without subscription, remove or find a better reference —links to the episode itself  Done

Filming

• Reduce references in first line from 6 to 3-4  Done
• Reduce ref in third line from 4 to 3  Done
• Add ref from fifth line to fourth line as well, or turn them into one line.  Done

Broadcast and Ratings

• Reformat everything except the last line similar to the lead.  Done
• Add consolidated ratings as well as references of any upward/downward trend.  Done

Critical Reception

• Reformat the paragraphs: one about similarities to other shows or previous episodes; the second about the Chuldur and the rest of the episode  Done
• Expand the section, add a couple of lines from 2-3 of the reviews  Done

References

• Ref-7 as mentioned —links to the episode itself  Done
• Ref-14, 20, 21, 24: Not an issue, but replace with text sources wherever possible — no text sources  Done
• Ref-16: Looks like a fan-site, change (or delete)  Done
• Ref 18, 19, 38: There have been discussions about the reliability of CultBox, but most DW articles use it, so I'll leave it to you if you wanna change them or not — we'll see to it if it becomes a issue later on  Done

Result

The article looks in good shape, just needs a few minor changes and slight expansion. Looks almost certain to pass, best of luck — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I will work on what's doable soon, but I do feel that a number of these aren't. Ref 7 for example, requiring a subscription is not a valid reason to remove or replace a source. That's why the field exists within {{Cite episode}}. This is a basic Wikipedia policy and can be seen at WP:PAYWALL, specifically the part that reads, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment [...]". Regarding your third point in the filming section, the number of lines a person views on any page can vary based on device, screen size, zoom, font size, and skin. This means that while you may see five lines, another person may experience six or four lines. The Good Article Criteria specifically state that content "must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph", a requirement which is met here. This one may be up for debate, but I'd also question if getting specific enough to mention the time and time zone that the episode release would be a violation of Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Four other articles from this season, as well as ones from numerous other seasons, have passed through the GAN process without requiring this information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, tell me what exactly ref-7 links to, and I'll take your word for it. If it's just the episode or something like that, then that's fine. By line, I meant from period to period, I should have made that clear. Yes, you can cite at the end of the paragraph, that's not what I brought it up; it was confusing if you forgot a reference or meant both sentences to have the same reference- every period in that section is followed by a reference other than that one, so it feels more like a forgotten reference. Yes, the article does't need a time or time slot, but the original sentences were a mess; mention BBC iPlayer and BBC One first and simultaneously in the US second, like the other four GA articles that you mention do(the ones from before weren't a UK-US co-production and only needed the UK release date). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The reviewing instructions say the reviewer can be bold and make some changes for minor issues, so I did. Expand and reformat ratings and critical reception and the article will be good enough to be a GA. See Boom (Doctor Who) for what length would be good. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Final Result

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:
· · ·

Congrulations, Rogue (Doctor Who) fulfills the Good Article criteria and is passed. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)