Talk:Fifteenth Doctor

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 01:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pietrus1 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Initial Review

Y - There are no clean-up banners present:

Per the GA criteria, the presence of these tags will result in a quick failure of the review unless they have been addressed but the tag was not removed.

• There are no clean-up banners present.

Y - Notability:

Notability assessed per: WP:Notability

• This independently assesses as notable, but it is also worth putting in writing that every other incarnation of this character has an article is that notability is ever questioned for some reason.

Y - Previous Reviews/Comments:

Any previous comments or reviews on the article should be directly acknowledged here.

• There were no recent comments at the time of this review.

Well-written:

Y - (a) (prose)

Y - Acronyms and technical terms:

Acronyms and technical terms are to be minimized. WP:Make technical articles understandable - GA is more forgiving than FA, but this serves as a general guide.

• There were not any technical terms in this article, so I took care of an acronym.

Y - Non-technical and non-grammatical Clarity:

The clarity of the article not pertaining to issues with grammar or technical concerns is documented here.

• I replaced some specific terms with more generic terms. I think what remains relate to the issues with conciseness which this article has.

Y - Conciseness:

Do any sentences meander on or use too many words to say something simple?

• The nominator engaged in a copyediting pass for this. I also made some WP:Bold changes myself. I think it has largely been dealt with now. There is still a small amount of restatement related to the kiss-scene with the Rogue character, but I am alright with it as someone made an edit indicating some amount of confusion regarding the in-show significance of this moment that was the nexus of the positive critical reception bits. I would prefer that there is clarity with regard to the nuance of this. I would still go further with conciseness changes, but for the purposes of GA, this is sufficient.

Y - Spelling and grammar:

Does it have good spelling and grammar?

• I made a number of minor changes here. Nothing that was not entirely clear, so I believe I was able to take care of the issues myself.

Y - (b) (MoS)

Y - Lead:

The lead should provide a basic overview that summarizes each section of the article. The first sentence should define what the article is about in simple terms. The lead should be an appropriate size. It's usually one to two paragraphs for shorter articles, three to four for longer articles.

• The Lede is good here, albeit it, it might be a bit long. Regardless, no changes are needed for GA.

Y - Layout:

Everything should be in the correct order. Each section should start with a == Level 2 Heading == with smaller headings dividing them when appropriate. The paragraphs should be an appropriate size. Avoid huge blocks of text or individual sentences on their own line. Images should be a reasonable size without obstructing or squishing the text. See also sections should only have relevant links that aren't found elsewhere in the article.

• No issues with the layout.

Y - Embedded lists:

Assessed per MOS:EMBED – embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. There should be no trivia lists or "in popular culture" lists as well.

• No embedded list issues.

Y - Words-to-watch:

Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that introduce bias: puffery, contentious labels, unsupported attributions, expressions of doubt, editorializing, inappropriate synonyms for "said" or these specific categories of imprecise word: euphemisms, cliches and idioms, relative time references, unspecified places or events. The article should also not use scare quotes.

• I made some changes here myself for the review. There is nothing unclear that I believe that the nominator needs to address.

"Well-written" criteria result: Pass

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Y - (a) (references)

Y - Links Functioning:

Each included reference link or an archived version is live.

• All links are currently functioning.

Y - Citation Formatting:

An adequate citation style is used. Citations are inline.

• There are no citation formatting issues.

Y - Quote Issues:

There are no formatting issues with quotations, and the article does not contain over-quotation.

• There are no issues.

Y - Divergence between reference and text:

There are no glaring text-source integrity issues.

Focusing on the two "Departure" sections and "Critical Reception:

[5]: No issues with divergence here.

[6]: No issues with divergence here.

[8]: No issues with divergence here.

[12]: No issues with divergence here.

[57]: No issues with divergence here.

[58]: No issues with divergence here.

[63]: No issues with divergence here.

[64]: No issues with divergence here.

[65]: No issues with divergence here.

[66]: No issues with divergence here.

[67]: No issues with divergence here.

[73]: No issues with divergence here.

[74]: No issues with divergence here.

[75]: No issues with divergence here.

[76]: No issues with divergence here.

[77]: The quote is fine, but it seems like the text about the fifteenth doctor in the link is substantially different even if the thrust is the same. Look into this one.

[78]: No issues with divergence here.

[80]: No issues with divergence here.

[81]: No issues with divergence here.

[82]: No issues with divergence here.

[83–85]: No issues with divergence here.

[86, 87]: No issues with divergence here.

[88]: No issues with divergence here.

[90]: No issues with divergence here.

[91]: No issues with divergence here.

Y - (Optional for GA) Citations reference specific pages or sections rather than the entire work:

References present in the article do not simply reference an entire work when the pages of the work are itemized. If individual pages or a timestamp cannot be referenced, then a general range is given.

• Only the Danny Nicol source looks like it needs a specific page number as this time.

• This is now taken care of.

Y - (b) (citations to reliable sources)

Y - Flagging any unreliable sources:

Only reliable sources are used or where less-reliable sources are used, such as opinion pieces or tabloids, their use is appropriate for the material referenced.

[8]: This source is marked as "no consensus" on the NPP source guide, and looking into this particular article, the author is drawing on random social media posts. Look to replacing this source or just removing it entirely. I think the other Den of Geek article is fine.

• Per below, this source is marked as reliable on the Perennial Sources list and has repeatedly been considered reliable in multiple discussions (For a smaller scale example, WP:VG/S has considered Den of Geek reliable for ages). These should be fine. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• This is taken care of now. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• I responded to this below. Just trying to keep the discussion in one place. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

[21]: This source is not the best source, but it is simply being used to document rumors. I would recommend replacing with a more reliable source if you can find one.

[22]: Same issue as with 21.

• I have substituted these with reliable sources where possible. I couldn't find a source discussing the Jo Martin rumors outside of outlets expressing their own opinion rather than just discussing general rumors, so I've cut that, but otherwise everything else is substantiated by reliable sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

[47]: Consider removing the one link from a Forbes contributor if you can find another source. Per WP:Forbes, there are issues with people like the author of this article who were contributors but later became Forbes staff members. The article might be fine if you can verify that the author was on the Forbes staff before the article was written, but this source might always carry a stigma regardless. Consider replacing it.

• It seems to be an interview with Forbes so it should be fine as a PRIMARY source, but given it's only cited for a quote box I've elected to just remove it for simplicity's sake. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Great! No issue then. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

[62]: This multi-source citation includes cbr.com, which is unreliable per NPP source guide and the anime and manga wiki project.

• This has now been addressed.

Y - (c) (original research)

Each specific source is to include some confirmation that the source says what the article says the source says, often using text from the source and the article.

• The instance I brought up has been attributed properly. This section needs to be assessed more thoroughly, however.

Focusing on the two "Departure" sections and "Critical Reception:

[5,6]: I think the sources with respect to Gatwa's introduction as the first Black Doctor seem to be a bit vague about the signficance of his introduction. "...was seen by critics as taking away from the importance of Gatwa's introduction..."

[8]: All good.

[12]: All good.

[57]: All good.

[58]: All good.

[63]: All good.

[64]: All good.

[65]: All good.

[66]: All good.

[67]: All good.

[73]: All good.

[74–76]: These three were mostly factual reference. I think it is fine to use sources like this and there is no digression from the use of them.

[77]: The quote is fine, but it seems like the text about the fifteenth doctor in the link is substantially different even if the thrust is the same. Look into this one.

[78]: All good.

[80]: All good.

[81]: All good.

[82]: All good.

[83–85]: I do not think this qualifies as synth against policy, but I am going to note it here even if I think it is good enough.

[86, 87]: All good.

[88]: All good.

[90]: All good.

[91]: All good.

Y - (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)

Y - Earwig Results:

A pass using the copyvio detector Good Article Review tool is run for initial detection of copyright violations and any offending content is removed.

• No violation flagged.

Y - Manual Pass:

Sources are to be checked manually where appropriate to ensure that no copyright violations are present in the text. Plagiarism or overly-close paraphrasing of sources can be considered copyright violation. Individual sources with issues are highlighted here and the exact text provided that is at issue. Note this is a basic copyvio check, not a content check.

Introduction

These are all fine. Part of an introductory section that I see being reused anyhow. I intend to ignore these for the OR section.

In Television

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

In spin-off media

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Casting

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Characterisation

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Costume

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Departure

I made small copyedits in this section.

Announcement and response

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Critical response

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

Departure

There are no issues with the sources in this section.

"Verifiable" criteria result: Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

Y - (a) (major aspects - broadness)

Does it accord with the coverage of other GA articles similar to its subject?

• I believe the article is sufficiently broad looking at the other incarnations of this character.

Y - (b) (focus/scope)

Assessed per WP:DETAIL – Make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed. Unnecessary detail often also arises from either WP:COATRACK issues or excessive reliance on WP:PRIMARY sourcing.

• The article does not have issues with this.

"Broadness" criteria result: Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Y - Opinions presented as facts:

Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.

• I need to reassess this after a copyediting pass from the nominator.

• I think I was too harsh on this on first-pass. This passes GA.

Y - Facts presented as opinions:

The above should not be the case for agreed-upon facts.

• No issues here.

Y - Good/Bad Implications:

The article should not imply that one fact, opinion, or position is better than another unless that is the object of discussion and is well-sourced.

• I need to reassess this after a copyediting pass from the nominator.
• I made some copyedit changes. Review them below.

• I might be a bit overzealous about this for GA, but I feel this is slightly too much for the lead section and a bit redundant anyway, in light of the previous clause.

• which were highlighted as standout moments for the character.
• "not executed well..."

• I think this was more of a clarity issue that I read as a good/bad issue previously. Regardless I combined two sentences in the lead so that others do not make the same mistake.

• "giving his life"->"triggering his regeneration" since he does not die, but instead regenerates. There seems to be a minor good/heroic implication here.
• "noted"-> "argued"

Y - Participation in Arguments:

The article does not argue for a particular position or point-of-view.

• The article seems to attribute all instances where opinions are offered currently as does not attempt to argue particular sides. It does presented a few opinions without sources, though it attributes them. This should be looked at in the copyedit pass.

Y - Potentially Contentious Labels:

Contentious labels must be cited to high quality sources, especially if they're about living people.

• The article passes here.

Y - Fringe Views:

Fringe views and other views in the minority should not be given the same weight as major views. If most reliable sources accept one position, then alternatives should not be presented as if they are prominent.

• I need to reassess this after a copyediting pass from the nominator.
• "These rumours" -> "This alternate ending"
• I think the rest of what I was looking at was too harsh for GA.

Y - Minor Points Given Undue Weight:

Minor aspects of a topic should not be given undue importance. Even if they're not controversial, it's still a neutrality issue.

• The article passes here.

Y - Competing Views Integrated Well:

The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible. If there are competing views of similar prominence in reliable sources, then one should not be given additional weight over the others.

• The article passes here.

Y - No one source given outsized influence:

No individual source should have outsized influence on the article, nor should the ideas of one specific writer, expert, critic, or school of thought.

• There is no issue with this.

Y - The article is not divided by point-of-view:

The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible. Similarly, the article's purpose should not be to take a specific stance on a topic.

• There is no issue with this.

"Neutrality" criteria result: Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

🔨 - Pass/Fail and Explanation:

There are not any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability, including edits in pursuit in response to the GA review. Vandalism (that is reverted, of course) also does not count against this. If there is a dispute, the article can sometimes be held rather than failed.

• The article has received a fair amount of editing over the last couple of days. I am just going to see if this continues while I proceed with the review as there does not seem to be anything like edit-warring going on.

• There is no problem with this now.

"Stability" criteria result: Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Y - (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

Ideally, articles should include illustrative images, video, or audio, though it is not a GA requirement for media to be included. If media is included, the following must be followed for GA.

Y - Images are appropriately tagged:

Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags.

• All images are correctly tagged upon review.

Y - Non-free images are given appropriate descriptions:

If the file is non-free content, it must have a non-free use rationale explaining why it can be used on that specific article.

• There are currently no non-free images.

Y - (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)

Y - Relevant images

Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed.

• I believe all images are relevant to their respective sections.

Y - Suitable captions

Ensure all images have suitable captions.

• All images currently have suitable captions. No issues here.

Y - (Optional for GA) Add alt-text to images

Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed. Make sure images have appropriate captions.

• I marked this as a red "X" just for visibility. Consider adding alt-text if you want to.
• This has been done.

"Illustration" criteria result: Pass

Overall result: Pass

Explanation:

• This now passes.

Pietrus1 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that things marked with a red "X" are not indicative of failure, they are where the article currently would need some changes by the nominator.

Pietrus1 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I think this article needs a substantial copyediting pass currently. Please take a particular look at shortening/conciseness of certain parts of the article and the sentences therein. Also look for any unsourced information. There is currently a bit in the article. Just ping me when you are done and I will take another look at the article.

Pietrus1 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1 Can do on the copyedit pass. Before I do so, however, could you clarify an example or two on Opinions presented as Good/Bad, and Opinions presented as fact bits you have issues with? I would appreciate so I have a clearer idea of what you'd like me to address on the copyedit pass. On Fringe views, what would you want done to the sections about rumors to make this better overall phrasing-wise? Similar phrasing is used at The Reality War, a GA, and I'd appreciate a comparison to see what I am missing here.

Also, could you clarify what sources you looked at you had issue with? I'd appreciate transparency on the spotcheck so I know what I need to go and fix, since the statements on the sources currently given are a bit vague as it stands. I'd also like some clarity on the unsourced information, since every sentence in the article body (Unless I'm missing something) is currently cited to a source and I am not sure what you have an issue with in that regard.

Thank you for the overall thorough review so far! The copyedit pass shouldn't be anything too strenuous but I'd appreciate some clarity so I can hit up everything in one go through without missing anything. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I will set a reminder to myself to write something up tomorrow. I must head to bed now. Are you able to look at the conciseness/attribution points though (perhaps I made a mistake as to what source was being pointed to, regardless though, if I missed something, that could maybe need some clarification regardless)? I imagine that a lot of what I take issue with will be addressed via that pass anyhow.

Pietrus1 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Attribution was what I meant via the "Opinions as facts" mention (Pulled the name from the subheader for that section). Conciseness I would prefer to save for the copyedit pass since that is very much a copyediting issue more than anything else, but I have no further questions about it.

I hope you have a good night! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll go point-by-point now --

Conciseness:

I wanted to be a bit vague about this intentionally. Here are a couple of quotes from the article that I think could use some trimming. This is not an exhaustive list; I noticed a lot in this category throughout the article. I would have taken me a fair bit of time to make the "Bold" changes that I would have liked -- not a small thing.

Sentence-level:

• There is a "with X" construction that appear frequently in the article that leads to many awkward and overlong sentences. I have attempted to edit most of these out myself, but I would look at what changes I have made. For an example though: "Following the broadcast of "The Church on Ruby Road", critics responded positively to Gatwa's performance in the episode,[71] with Time noting that many early critic responses found him to be a "refreshing, dynamic force that brings the show to new heights".[29]" Could easily be split into two sentences. This was one of the examples where it did not really improve clarity to do so, but in other cases that I noticed and edited, it did. Others create redundancy in the sentence.

General conciseness:

• Statements like: "The series follows the Doctor as he attempts to return Belinda to Earth on 24 May 2025. The pair end up travelling through time and space as the Doctor tries numerous methods to bring her home." can be combined as an example. There are a number of instances like this that I think should be combined.

Minor OR content:

This is content where you get a bit away from the source. I have not done an in-depth source check, but what is here is usually what drew me to verify. The more pedestrian/factual claims have not been assessed yet. I would assume there isn't any issue with them.

• "Gatwa's exit in "The Reality War" was criticised by some black fans of the series who felt that the Fifteenth Doctor's character did not get enough time to develop. They also questioned behind-the-scenes choices surrounding Gatwa’s departure and the lack of another black actor or person of colour to fill the role following his departure."

• This is a very general statement as well as a bit out-of-step, it should be more directly attributed like the bit about LGBT people is. It's also basically speculation cited to social media posts with few followers within the source. The appearance by Jo Martin speculation is not even cited within the source. I would also suggest maybe just deleting this entire part. It's from a "no consensus" source and looks to be poor in this case.

• I would oppose removing Den of Geek here. It is considered generally reliable (See WP:DENOFGEEK, I'm not sure where the no consensus part of this is hailing from). That said I have added attribution, let me know if this needs further alteration. I'm also a bit confused where the Jo Martin bit's coming from? I don't mention her at all within the article outside of casting, which is not using Den of Geek. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Looking more into it. It looks to be instances like the "neutrality issues" will probably be taken care of if these instances are changed.

• I will be doing this check as part of my regular review, so stay tuned, but it will be for these sorts of minor alignment hiccups.

• @Pietrus1: I've tried making a general copyedit pass over the article to adjust wording and such. Let me know if anything else should be altered. Also responded about the DoG source above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the Den of Geek source, I would imagine this is an issue caused by the source listing being maintained in multiple places. I will treat the source as GR for the purposes of this review from now on. I do still take issue with the particular article used for the coverage of the reactions of black fans referencing small social media posts to support the "black whovians..." criticism. For the "Jo Martin" bit, I was offering further criticism of the source, not this article. That this page does not reference that bit is a credit, if anything. I would recommend replacing the article for this section (currently reference eight). Other instances of "Den of Geek" use seem fine, but I did not take issue with those regardless. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's also worth mentioning that the same article is used to support factual claims elsewhere. I don't think those instances are an issue if the source is listed as GR elsewhere. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have additionally found one more issue with a source. According to NPP, cbr.com's coverage "...since 2016 was of lower quality and tends towards sensationalism." The anime and manga project writes that: "From mid-2023 to present, Comic Book Resources is considered generally unreliable due to its repeated use of AI-generated content and occasional factual errors."

  Can this source be replace as well? It is currently part of multi-source attribution [62]. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Pietrus1 I have added alt text. For page numbers for Nicol, I believe they were actually already included (1-11, though I might be misreading that). For CBR, that is one I missed, I have removed it since the other sources in the multi-cite cover that well enough as is. For Den of Geek, do you want me to just remove the bit discussing how black fans have criticised the move, or the entire source from the section as a whole, to clarify? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are 11 pages for the Nicol source. 1–11 is the page range of the article. You are citing the entire work in-effect as it is. Thank you for removing the CBR link. I think on the Den of Geek thing. I think you could just remove the bit about black fans. The sourced is used for some other things in the text, and I think if the source is generally reliable, then it is good to use when issues are not obviously present like they are for the "black fans..." part. There is also the existing IGN source to back up the rest of what it says for that section anyhow. Pietrus1 (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Pietrus1 I have specified the page range. I have also removed the part of the Den of Geek source you took issue with, let me know if the current revision is alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)