Talk:The Doctor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm afraid, that this Good Article nomination is premature, as the article qualifies under the quick fail criteria at WP:GA? since it has one or more clean up banners in place. In the case of this particular article, I count six such banners on the present version. Also, the article has gone through periods of edit warring over content, which while would be fine right now as it has currently passed, that would also be another immediate fail if it were to occur at the time of a future GAN.

As I see it, the article needs a pretty much complete overhaul. I would suggest that for structure, you look at other fictional character articles already at both Good Article and Featured Article status. You'll need to develop your own modifications to that structure in order to take into account sections that wouldn't appear elsewhere (regenerations etc). In fact, if you were looking at a practice article before tackling this one, I'd suggest The Master (Doctor Who) since it's likely to take on a similar structure but you're dealing with less versions of the character and fewer appearances to summarise. Then once you've got feedback on that one at GAN, you can apply the learning to this one.

The main issue with this article is that it is massively under referenced. Despite having 77 citations and a few book sources, there are entire sections which are uncited. These are not limited to the six sections that have the clean up banners but spread throughout the article. Basically, everything needs to be cited - which is why I suggested the overhaul. It'll be easier to track down sources and write the information based on what you find, then it will be to track down specific sources to support claims already in the article. Especially where it is fancruft and original research where no reliable sourcing will exist.

Only once it is fully cited should it be brought back to GAN - most other issues can be dealt with here with feedback, but a reviewer shouldn't do the job of the nominator by tracking down appropriate sources for large sections of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the GA nomination by Emir of Wikipedia was made by someone who had not edited the article, yet had not followed the GA nomination instructions—those who wish to nominate articles they have not worked on should check first with the major editors of the article to see whether they think it is ready to meet the GA criteria. Consulting them would likely have garnered similar comments to those provided by Miyagawa, and saved Miyagawa's time in the bargain. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my apologies. I'm new here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - I did the exact same thing with British Library when I was a new editor back in 2009. Miyagawa (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]