Talk:Tales of the TARDIS

GA review

Passed. IAmNetx (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: IAmNetx (talk · contribs) 02:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to try my hand at reviewing this. Please do bear with me and let me know if you disagree with anything :) IAmNetx (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Checking as of this revision

[2] - Y
[3] - Y
- ~~Gatwa and Gibson are not listed in the source~~
  - actually this is covered by [13] so that could probably just be added to the same section
- article gives the name "Jo Jones" for Katy Manning's character, but source gives "Jo Grant"
  - In-universe, the character got married and changed her surname, but is more popularly known by her old last name out of universe due to that being the name she used when she was main cast. I've elected to change it to Grant just for simplicity's sake, though let me know if you'd like something else done here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
[4] - Y
[7] - Y
[9] - Y
- "which featured a "remembered TARDIS" that the characters in the story used after antagonist Sutekh captured the main TARDIS" not mentioned in source

- - Added a new source clarifying this detail. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

- "idea was scrapped due to there not being enough room in the special effects budget to include this sequence" source mentions this sequence would have been too far, but no mention of budget

- - Reworded. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

[12] - Y
[13] - Y
[16] - Y
[18] - =
- do not have a copy of this myself, ~~but the citation gives his name as Mike, but the article says Mark~~
  - fixed to be Mike.

- - Thank you! Missed that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio

Checked Earwig, only flags quotes and cast names etc - don't see any issues

Reliable sources

Minor issues found in spotcheck, otherwise seems fine

Y resolved

Images

Infobox - Y
Memory TARDIS - Y

Sections

Lead

Should include mention of reception per MOS:LEAD

Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, have reworded it a bit - felt "its elements" is a bit unclear on what elements, and "Critical response" reads a bit cleaner than "Response to the series from critics" IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Filming and production

"The series was directed by Joshua M.G. Thomas^[1] and produced by Scott Handcock"
- Release section says the seventh episode was "directed by Jamie Donoughue, and produced by Vicki Delow" - seemingly contradictory?

- - Not really; the series was directed by Thomas, but this episode in particular was directed by Donoughue. I'm not sure what is confusing about that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
    - I think my confusion came from it saying "the series was directed" by him, when the last episode was directed by someone else. I have changed the wording to say that the "first six episodes" were directed and produced by them - which I think is acceptable as the source predates the seventh episode IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

"The Memory TARDIS set was originally created for the series 14 episode "Empire of Death","
- Bit confusing - earlier it says Empire of Death aired in 2024, but these episodes aired in 2023. Could use clarifying?

- - Both series were filmed in 2023, Tales of the Tardis just released first. Sources mention this in Doctor Who series 14, but I am not quite sure how you would like that implemented given it's information largely unrelated to the rest of the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
    - I have added "which had been filmed before Tales of the TARDIS entered production" with a source from Doctor Who series 14 - I agree it's largely unrelated, but I think without that context it's a bit confusing IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Release and reception

Y Is there any further coverage on availability or maybe viewership? Feels a bit lacking here since it just states it was released exclusively on iPlayer - understandable if not

The viewership of this series has not been disclosed to my knowledge, so I couldn't add anything there. I have added a mention of the series being region-locked to the UK though, which I had thought I had added but missed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Y All three sources in terms of reviews are quite positive - any other reviews that were more mixed? Just checking nothing was passed over

There was little in terms of series reception; most articles were just covering development or announcements. It's enough to pass the notability bar but in terms of sourcing there's not much more that I could find. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, thankyou! IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@IAmNetx: Addressed the above. Let me know what else you'd like done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Thanks - I've made a few further changes myself. I think there are some places it could use a further bit of copyediting but I don't see anything really blocking GA. Nice work! IAmNetx (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.