Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials/archive1

List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials

Featured list candidates/List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials/archive1

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an unusually specific type of episode list. Most episode lists cover all episodes of a programme, or are split by year/season. However, this specific list covers a very narrowly specific group of episodes and I thought it would make an interesting featured list. I've spent a bit of time improving sources, and expanding the prose, and feel that it would make a great addition to Wikipedia's featured content. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As the lead mentions "1963-1989" and "since 2005" I think you should clarify that the show was off the air for the years in between
Also, I would put the 1963-1989 bit before the since 2005 bit
"held a record for the highest watched BBC drama from its broadcast until 2021" - this is a misrepresentation of the source. The source says the Line of Duty episode was the highest-viewed drama episode since the Dr Who episode, but it doesn't state that prior to this the Dr Who episode was the most viewed of all time. Indeed, at the point of its broadcast Voyage wasn't even the most-viewed Dr Who episode of all time (see City of Death#Broadcast and reception), let alone the most-viewed episode of any BBC drama ever. This applies to both the lead and body.
"During the third season, the twelve-part serial The Daleks' Master Plan was broadcast weekly over the 1965–1966 Christmas period" - this makes it sound like all 12 episodes were broadcast over Christamas, which obviously isn't the case
"When Doctor Who was revived in 2005 with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner the first proper" => "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005, with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner, the first proper"
"A special episode aired on New Year's day in 2010" - capital D on Day
"Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World" being the first time the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special" => "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World", marking the first time that the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special"
Rose is not linked or given a surname in the first episode description, even though other characters are
Tenth Doctor is linked multiple times but not on first usage
Same goes for the TARDIS
"warns Wilfred to arm himself to before departing" => "warns Wilfred to arm himself before departing"
"The Doctor and Wilfred become fugitives from the Masters" - plural?
"He also crates" => "He also creates"
"realises that Clara is the same person as Oswin Oswald" - could do with explaining who she was
"in exchange the return of the Captain" => "in exchange for the return of the Captain"
Link Jack Harkness
"They rejoin with her companions." => "They rejoin her companions."
"Ruby witnesses goblins kidnap the baby" => "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnapping the baby"
"when it was beat by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty" => "when it was beaten by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty"
"while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] and "The Husbands of River Song"." => "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] or "The Husbands of River Song"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks once again for the review! I believe I've addressed everything. The episode summaries are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why somethings are/aren't linked where they typically are. For that reason, I added a note for the Clara Oswin Oswald explanation, which should help satisfy that comment since it didn't need the full explanation there (the summary for Asylum of the Daleks summary is just a few episodes above on Doctor Who series 7).

I had been working on a Line of Duty article before I wrote this, hence why the wrong information was added. I was attempting to briefly explain it, without going into as much detail as I did on Line of Duty series 6. Just for reference, The original source I had in this article actually addressed LoD 6.6, not 6.7, and from what it reads, that episode only had "average 11 million" (or 10.9 million) viewers and actually didn't exceed VotD's 11.7. It's just saying that nothing had reached that high since 2008's special. And this source specifically states that LoD 6.7 was "the most watched episode of any drama since modern records began in 2002, not including soaps", which (when simplifying) is where the accidental misrepresentation likely came in. I ultimately removed it here, just because going into that much detail seemed out of scope. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Pending

Reliable enough for the information being cited
Consistent date formatting
Consistent and proper reference formatting
Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

Can you improve the alt text for the image beyond "DVD cover art"? At least say what it's the DVD cover art of.
"story-arc" should be "story arc"
Ref 1 – Website is not "BBC Doctor Who website", recommend changing the source of this to BBC One
Ref 13 – Not seeing how the source is BBC Three here. Probably better to use BBC iPlayer.
Ref 21 – Uses "Cultbox.co.uk" whereas refs 12 and 24 just use "CultBox"
Ref 21 – No author listed, one mentioned at source
Ref 25 – Change The Associated Press to just Associated Press
Ref 27 – Item 4 in there should be changed from Screenrant to Screen Rant
Ref 29 – Change "The Pop Verse" to PopVerse. This also lists a different publish date than what's used in the article
Why should we treat "The Doctor Who Companion" as a reliable source? Seems to be a WordPress blog.
Why should we treat "Doctor Who News" as a reliable source? It seems all of the ratings rely on this, whereas there's likely better sources that could be used.
Why should we treat "Nerdgazm" as a reliable source? I see they have editors listed, but I'm not exactly sold on them
Archives should be added to a number of these links where possibly

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]