Talk:Ice Warrior

press report

this is quite spooky. i was in the pub last evening making predictions about what happens in season 3 and i decided that the ice warriors could well be introduced in s3s1. is the paper channeling from my brainwaves? Morwen - Talk 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And would it then be *boom! boom!* psychic paper? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigation box

Hey, especially in light of the recent press rumors, think the Warriors should get a navigation box like those of the Daleks and Cybermen? --71.139.18.66 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure they have enough stories? Someone suggested it for the Sontarans recently, they didn't really have enough. Morwen - Talk 12:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Picture?

I know that a lot of the time Ice Warriors appear in armour, rather then showing skin. However I am sure that we could find a picture that features a group of Ice Warriors with a mixture of them wearing armour and perhaps without the helment to highlight their reptilian appearance. I don't want to spark a reversion war by simply changing the picture so I am going to open it to debate. Dr noire (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Name

Isd there any information, canon or not, about what the Ice warriors call themselves - apart from the single reference to Izixyr using the "Ice Warrior" term? Totnesmartin 11:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Color

I believe that these pictures of Ice Warriors in color that I uploaded should be the ones used on this page. If anyone wish to revert this, please say it here first, and give a good reason for why the black/white images are better than the color ones. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The current ones? I don't really like them... I think that they are really... for look of a better word, it looks like someone squashed them. I personally liked that other one we had... the other colour one, with the Ice warrior in front of that ship(?)... what ever happenned to that one?

I understand your feelings, though. We should have a colour picture. I guess these ones will do for now... until someone finds a better colour picture from the actual TV series. And please, let us avoid a revert war. Let's simply discuss possible alternatives here. They current pictures will do for now, as I said earlier, but... I don't think they should become our permanent Ice Warrior picture. Temporary place-holder, I guess. Comics (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review

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:Ice Warrior/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 00:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I know very little about Doctor Who besides the premise, so bear with me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Well-written

"the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct" (?) "It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections (?), layout ( Pass), words to watch ( Pass), fiction (?), and list incorporation ( Pass ... no lists)"

• "Unlike other monsters that appear in the series, the Ice Warriors are depicted as being individuals, and can be both villainous and heroic in nature" I feel like this sentence presupposes too much knowledge of the series, might be worth clarifying
  • Tried to clarify this in simpler terms, but I'm open to any suggestions on changing this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The Martians are revived" using this instead of their name is somewhat jarring imo, when it has been only briefly established they are from mars
  • Changed from "Martians" to "Ice Warriors". Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• Despite the name being given by a character in the story, the title "Ice Warrior" would go on to be used by the species themselves in-universe in future re-appearances." - despite seems a weird word to use here, and the Ice Warriors are also characters in the story so this is unclear.
  • Tried to clarify to make it more clear. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  lgtm PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The 1972 serial The Curse of Peladon, depicts the Ice Warriors having renounced violence and become members of a Galactic Federation." is the comma necessary?
  • Removed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• "A sequel, The Monster of Peladon, aired in 1974 and was set 50 years after the events of The Curse of Peladon. Here, the Ice Warriors are depicted serving as Federation peacekeeping troops" "was set" we use present tense for fictional works, usually
  • Set the prose in present tense where applicable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• will get back to this later
• Sorry for the break, I got a little bit stuck when I was reviewing the prose. I'll get back to this now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The prose is still very jilted in a lot of places. For example, "as being one of the series' most "fondly remembered of Doctor Who monsters"," very duplicative, of the series, then mentions the series again... sentences in the reception section in particular are very long winded and as someone who knows nothing about the show I find them particularly hard to follow. For another example, the whole sentence in Cold War from "Writer Mark Gatisss [...] before" is one extremely long sentence, which is hard to follow. There are lots of these. It's basically understandable, but I'm not sure if I would call it clear and concise. I find fixing this difficult, I keep pointing it out but then I keep finding more instances. This article could benefit from a copyedit. This is difficult because I feel I cannot pass the article in its current state of prose, but it's not really a clear fail either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• I don't know who Brian Hayles is unless I click on his article so you should say what he does on the show
• Same with Martin Baugh though he doesn't have an article
• "their first encounter" strange phrasing. maybe appearance?
• "They first appeared in the 1967 serial The Ice Warriors", I believe a comma should go after warriors
• "The Ice Warriors have appeared in a large number of spin-off material since their debut." shouldn't material be plural?

• I'm used to spin-off material being used as a plural myself, but I may be misremembering. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• "overlap with antagonists" should have a the in front of antagonists
• "which cited" - strange use of cited, maybe "described" or something similar
• "would see little changes to the core design, with it remaining largely faithful to the original." - changes should be change

• Addressed the rest of the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• I feel like the lead is too long relative to what it's covering. The first and last parts are fine, but the two paragraphs of solely production details, many of which feel like rather specific details, feels to me like it could be condensed. For example, the mammoth detail strikes me as rather minor for its placement in the lead... things like that.

• @PARAKANYAA: could you clarify what other aspects of the lead you feel should be trimmed? I'm not exactly sure what parts you want me to condense down. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The lead seems to me disjointed. The second paragraph goes from their inspiration to their appearances, then in the third paragraph we're back at inspiration and then back to appearances. I feel like it is just very long winded and fixated on minor details - like how much is the material costume details about the Ice Lords, a version of the Ice Warriors, to the overall lead? Also, "A later design for a leader of the species, dubbed the Ice Lords, would feature a less armoured appearance - "a leader", but then plural "ice lords". PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Appearances

I have the most issues in this section because I feel like this assumes you have watched the show, there isn't a lot of context.

• "Mars has died since he went into suspended animation" - was it the civilization that died or did the whole planet explode? I don't think died is a very clear word for this.
• "but he relents and is rescued by an Ice Warrior spaceship" any reason why he relents, as is this is pretty jarring. i assume there is a reason the villain stopped his plan
• "The Ice Warriors reappear"... this paragraph seems unclear to me. Where were they digging for treasure? it says Mars is gone but is this true given the "golden age" comment?
• Skaldak had been found by a Soviet submarine, with a crew member thawing him and causing him to go on a rampage - had been is past tense, connects to the next sentence weirdly. why does thawing him make him go on a rampage?
• "realising this is the beginning of an Ice Warrior golden age." disconnected from rest of paragraph, i don't see why this would result from the preceding material

• I've tried to clarify all of this to the best of my ability. Hopefully the new wordings make this more clear. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• "Despite the large gaps in appearances" - I find this to be phrased poorly, maybe in their appearances, or appearances of the Ice Warriors, something like that, jarring way to start a section.
• Graham Sleight in ... - maybe clarify that this is a book
• citing the fibreglass costumes used - used is awkward here
• effect of the creatures being impregnable - "impregnable" is maybe correct but not the ideal way to say this
• The book Once Upon a Time Lord" - any reason we don't say the author?

• Is it standard to cite the author with the book? I've seen it done both ways. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• • it's up to editor choice, but since we are linking the show creators in those citations I thought it made sense. But it is fine either way this is more a suggestion
• that took ambiguities presented on-screen in order to further expand their narrative potential in other media - very meandering, I get what this is saying but a more succinct/clear way would be preferable
• in the fourth paragraph, who says this? it's an essay collection
• "their usual actions" the usage of usual is confusing here. what aspect of their behavior?
• "the usage of its antagonist", maybe add "he said" before this, it flows awkwardly from the previous part

• Addressed the rest of the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The paragraphs would benefit from lead sentences that demonstrate their focus, e.g. that they were praised for their mystery and ambiguity or something. The second paragraph seems fairly arbitrary and the sectioning isn't very thematic, ideally it would have a better 'idea' bringing it together. It just seems random disconnected thoughts right now, and while that is somewhat unavoidable, some of these sentiments are pretty similar so I bet this can be improved. The fourth paragraph is also pretty randomly placed, it's just one thought disconnected - maybe it would fit better in an analysis section, see below.

• That has been met with some mixed responses from other editors on-site in regard to whether it's OR or not, so I've neglected not to include them to be safe. I've tried to keep associated topics together to make it clear, though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Verifiable

• passes 2a, solid reference list
• cite 19 does not have enough information to identify the ref (no work no date). a lot of radio times citations lack dates and author bylines
  • I'll begin formatting these shortly, as well as per your comments below. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• sources all are reliable, primary sources used to support basic series info
• inline sourcing is good except for parts in the appearances section - is there a reason some of this would be uncited? never reviewed an article like this before
  • WP:MOSPLOT states that plot summary does not need to be cited for fictional works. It only needs citations if it's extrapolation or something that wouldn't be clear to someone watching it. Basic plot details like those in the prose should be fine, and anything debatable I've put citations on already. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I knew of that, just never thought of it applying to fictional characters. Still, fair enough, not an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• will get back to this later
• spot check also later
• You cite Ainsworth a lot with no page numbers or section indications. Same with The Doctor's Monsters: Meanings of the Monstrous in Doctor Who, Inside the TARDIS: The Worlds of Doctor Who. If they're epubs/similar and so don't have pages, that's fine, but then could you indicate chapter/section headings? It is not very easy to verify or spot check these if they are to full books and I have no idea where it is located. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have access to page numbers for the last one, but I've added them to the ones you've requested. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you're citing whole paragraphs to 30+ page range sources. It would be easier to verify if those could be narrowed down. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Spot check

• From here
  • "The Ice Warriors also follow an honor code," cited to not sure if this is strong enough for "follow" rather than "have" but that may be quibbling. fine
  • "Mac Rogers and Frank Collins [...]" same source. the quote is supported, but the way we're writing this we are attributing it to both when actually it's just to Collins. Rogers says something about enduring but does not say the last part of this.
  • "Patrick Mulkern of Radio Times highlighted the return of the Ice Warriors in "Cold War", praising the deep and thoughtful characterisation of Skaldak in the episode, as well as the reveal of the Ice Warrior's true form." cited to Problem: I can't find anything in this or their true form. It also talks about Skaldek's characterization but the descriptors he uses aren't deep or thoughtful or analogous to those descriptors so I don't know where you got that from. This seems problematic
  • "and was eventually able to convince Moffat to do so after pitching story ideas for the Ice Warriors in a phone call originally intended for discussing Moffat and Gatiss's television series Sherlock;" cited to , said in source, pass
  • "with Moffat stating that the Ice Warriors were obscure enough that they need a redesign, with the final design on-screen being an improved version of the original design seen on screen in their previous appearances" - technically supported by the source, but the last half of this sentence is not cited to Moffat but to Gatiss. so still problematic.
  • "Barring a brief mention in the 2009 episode "The Waters of Mars", the Ice Warriors did not appear in the show's 2005 revival until 2013, where they returned in the series seven episode "Cold War"." supported by source, pass

Broad

• will get back to this later
• seems to not have undue weight on specific aspects, so pass there
•  Pass covers what i would expect from a fictional character article, real world development, fictional appearances, reception, if I have any quibbles about clarifications/minor aspects of coverage I'll ask that in the writing section

Stable

•  Pass

Neutral

•  Pass, no issues

Images

• 4 free images and 1 fair use image
• Valid licenses on all four free images that match their source, though I do have a question. From previous discussions I think these images are fine per Freedom of Panorama (permanent exhibit) but to my understanding you need to tag for the copyright of the design/FOP clarification.
  • Will add these momentarily. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
• The fair use image seems justified as commentary on how different the design was which is impossible to properly explain in text
•  Pass, now tagged

Non GA-mandatory things but that I think are helpful

you don't have to do these for me to pass this but they're helpful

• alt text should be added
• source names should not be written as websites unless that is the actual name of the website, e.g. bbc news not bbc.com radio times not ww.radiotimes.com
• sources are also rather inconsistently formatted, which is an FA criterion not a GA criterion, but still. Some works have wikilinked names (e.g. Vox), some don't (e.g. Slate), every radio times citation is formatted differently, ideally pick one or the other

General structural comments

Would it be worth splitting reception and analysis like in Silence (Doctor Who)? I find that makes it flow better in that article than it does here. What is the use of the second EL? It appears to be some random fan website.

• I did not notice that second EL at all lmao. It's gone now. As for the split, the reception and analysis sources for the Ice Warriors are pretty well-tied together in terms of the content that's actually significant about them, so there's no real clear "split" in how the coverage is presented, unlike with the Silence where the content has a clear distinction in how they're responding to the Silence. I do feel trying to make a split in the Reception would just make the content harder to parse, but if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Verdict

My apologies this review took so long, it was hard for me to properly write out my issues with it because they're somewhat far-ranging. Prose is my biggest problem and probably the hardest to solve. Every section I look the prose is somewhat problematic:

• "actors wearing the costume would sweat out around a pint of sweat in less than an hour." disjointed from previous part of sentence - them being tall costumes is not inherently why it was hot, but probably the materials, no?
• "This species would later be dubbed the Ice Warriors." well we've already established they're called the ice warriors so IDK what this is trying to say
  • wl perspex
• "The Ice Warriors were nominated for a return to the series, alongside the Daleks and Silurians." - how does nomination work for a TV show? who was doing the nominating?
• "The Ice Warriors were designed to show more emotions than other monsters in the series." - why? at this time? by who? this feels very disjointed
• "For the serial, ..." starts a rather long sentences
• "Bennion and Caldinez both reprised their roles, though as the Ice Lord Azaxyr and Ice Warrior Sskel, respectively, with Bennion again acting in studio while Caldinez pre-recorded his dialogue" they're not reprising their roles, are they, since they're playing different ice warriors?
• "Following this appearance, the Ice Warriors would not appear on-screen again until the series' 2005 revival... Barring a brief mention in the 2009 episode "The Waters of Mars", the Ice Warriors did not appear in the show's 2005 revival until 2013, where they returned in the series seven episode "Cold War"." we are saying this twice
• "Moffat also believed that the show had reached a point where it did not need to extend further back into its "back catalog" any further." further ... back... back. very duplicative sentence
• I feel at some point in this article you should explain that Doctor Who has multiple different 'series' rather than seasons because this confused me a few times.
• "The 2013 episode "Cold War" depicts an Ice Warrior named Grand Marshal Skaldak being found by a Soviet submarine frozen in a chunk of ice" is he in the ice, or is the submarine in the ice? as of now, it is ambiguous
• "J.J Elridge, writing in the book..." a single very long sentence standing on its own

Generally the prose feels very awkward to me and sentences often go on, and the problem is everywhere. I made some minor copyedits of tiny things but this is more about the general structure of sentences which is harder to fix. Silence (Doctor Who), a similar article, has far better prose. There's no section where I can really say it feels like it passes the GA standards for prose, except the The Seeds of Death section which is better now (though wouldn't it be "of" fibreglass? though, via as used here could be a british english thing. not sure).

I am concerned mostly based on prose, but also not reassured by the first basic spot check which found some issues in prose-text integrity, though admittedly not dire ones. I am also concerned by verifiability and over use of some sources. Whole paragraphs are also cited to 30+ page book ranges from a single source, which is very difficult to verify and makes me worry about if we're using sources to the best of our ability - the first three paragraphs, which are quite lengthy, in "1970s and scrapped re-appearances", are cited entirely to one book. If no other sources cover that (I find this doubtful) is it really due weight to have this much? Given how discussed Doctor Who is, is there no other source that has covered this background information?

There's a lot of good material here, but in terms of prose I feel it is rather far from GA quality in its current state, and cannot pass it like this. I would have this copyedited by a fresh set of eyes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

More nitpicks

@Pokelego999 Since you wanted my thoughts:

• 'At the time of the Ice Warriors' debut, the Doctor Who production team was seeking new recurring antagonists, and the Ice Warriors were brought back due to their appearance in The Ice Warriors, which was popular with audiences.' this sentence is very confusing. first half is about their debut, second is about their reappearance. split?
• I would move the third paragraph to combine with the second in the lead but that's just personal preference you don't have to
• In the first paragraph of spin-off media we are using "and" in the middle of listings, not at the end. '1994 novel Legacy, 1996 novels GodEngine, and Happy Endings, 1997 novel The Dying Days, and the 2011 novel The Silent Stars Go By.' odd.
• in the fourth paragraph we should specify that he only appears as a companion in the spin off media, as is the first sentence seems unfitting for the section.
• "as being one of the series' most "fondly remembered of Doctor Who monsters"" specifying both the series and Doctor Who is very redundant.
• appearances section is much better in structure and in style. no more prose complaints from a glance
• conception and development section seems largely fine
• The first paragraph of the reception section still feels weirdly written to me. This is probably unhelpful as it is difficult to pinpoint what is putting me off but the "Sleight attributed..." and what is around it seem slightly off.

Overall, better PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA To clarify on one or two things

-The "and" was there to show that both GodEngine and Happy Endings were released in 1996, but I accidentally left a comma between them. This should hopefully be clearer now.

-I feel the same vibe on the reception para now that you point it out but I'm unsure as to why myself. Maybe it's the Once Upon a Time Lord bit, which was largely disconnected from the rest of the overall paragraph's focus (On the Ice Warriors' popularity and why they were successful)? I've shifted it to another paragraph, so let me know if that fixes it. If it's something else then let me know.

I've left the lead paras separate just because I feel it'll be easier for readers to have dev and reception split up, but the rest has been changed per your comments. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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:Ice Warrior/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 05:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll give this a look Olliefant (she/her) 00:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Differences from the previous review

• Still some prose issues (like the term Ice Warriors being used over and over again when "they" could be used some of these time)  Done

• Cut down on the usage of "Ice Warriors"; let me know if it needs more trimming. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think most (if not all) identified probelms have been fixed
• Images still need alt text  Done

• Alt text added. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• I think their spin off appearences should be mentioned given that the term "on-screen" is used (this is optional)

• This is already present in the last line of the first paragraph: "The Ice Warriors have also appeared in several pieces of spin-off media for the series." Let me know if you want this moved

• Looks good

Appearances

• "Despite the name "Ice Warrior" being dubbed by a character in their debut serial, the name has been used by the species in subsequent appearances" what does this mean?

• Electing to remove for now; seems to be trivia if both reviewers are unable to understand this clearly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• The "Classic Era" subheading capitalizes era while the "Revived era" does not. Personally I'd do the latter as it seems more commonly used  Done

Conception and development

• "Though former showrunner Russell T Davies wished", specify when RTD was showrunner  Done
• "Another story, dubbed "Ice Time", was planned for a proposed 1990 series" the word season should be used when talking about the classic run. Also using "a" and not "the" implies there was multiple seasons proposed for 1990  Done

• Addressed both of these comments. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• "a scrapped story for the 1986 series" this should also say season
• Change the "Revived series" subheading to "Revived era" for consistency

Reception

• Alot of the book sources say "x book said y" but the author needs to be listed like "writing in x, z said y" or something like that  Done
• Link "Radio Times" in reception on first mention as opposed to the second one  Done

• Did both. On the former, the previous reviewer said citing books without authors was fine, but I've elected to do it anyway. I can't find the exact author in the Language book due to page limits, so unfortunately I can't do much about that one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Robert Smith?" drop the question mark (its also present in the ref)

References and misc

• Ref 5, drop the "|Radio Times" in the article name  Done
• I think the primary sources (like official DW books and episodes) citations are so numerous its worth using Template:Primary sources references section  Not done

• I personally don't quite see the point of creating a different reference section solely for primary citations. I'm not very good with SFNs either, and prefer not to use them, so I'm afraid I'm going to elect to not do this, if that's alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• The non primary book sources need page numbers

• I can't access many of the page numbers due to many being from Google Books previews, which don't list page numbers. Not quite sure what I can do about this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Google previews give you page numbers if you search for specific terms Olliefant (she/her) 16:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Not all of them. Who is the Doctor? specifically doesn't let me view page numbers. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Then just add what you can Olliefant (she/her) 16:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Inconsistent linking, ref 2 links Vox while ref 5 doenst link Radio Times

• De-linked Vox since it's the only one to do this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Vox isnt the only one to do this ref 4 links Space, ref 47 links Radio Times and 50 links SFX. There are likely others Olliefant (she/her) 16:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Several book authors arent linked (Paul Cornell for example)  Done

• Hit up what links I could; let me know if I missed any. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 24, 25 and 27 say "Marvel" while 48 says "Mavel Comics UK" technically speaking im pretty sure their called "Marvel UK"  Done

• Changed to Marvel UK. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Consider adding a bibliography section and using "Sfn"  Not done

• I personally do not like using SFNs, so I will abstain from doing this, if that's alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Run IA bot

• The current WIFI I'm stuck with at college physically won't let me and buffers out before it can archive anything. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Inconsistent formatting in dates (some use slash dates some use DMY)
• A few MOS:DASH errors (both this and the above can probably be solved with a script)

• On the above; I put the DMY format tag at the top, so I'm not sure why there isn't a script running as is. For MOS:DASH, what script fixes this issue? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The DMY format tag doesnt run a script its for other editors to know what dates to use. You can use this for Dashes and this for dates Olliefant (she/her) 16:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• The episode citations vary weather they list BBC1/BBC One. They should all list some form of them alongside BBC and Doctor Who  Done
• The revived era citations should use BBC One and the classic era ones should use BBC1  Done
• Delink BBC for consistency, its the equivelent of publisher for the TV show and other publishers arent linked  Done
• "I.B. Tauris" is linked in ref 9 and 37, all other publishers arent  Done
• Ref 8 "EW.com" should be Entertainment Weekly  Done
• Ref 38 is missing the website  Done

• Did all not responded to above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

BBC1 is still linked in several places Olliefant (she/her) 01:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant where? I swore I got all of them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Refs 10-13 Olliefant (she/her) 16:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I'm confused. You told me that "The revived era citations should use BBC One and the classic era ones should use BBC1". I put BBC1 for Classic citations and BBC One for revived citations as you requested. Do you want it to be all BBC One or to have them be different per citation type? I'm not sure what you want me to do here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean BCC 1 should be delinked per the above reason. Olliefant (she/her) 20:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant oh, woops, gotcha. Done, let me know what else needs to be changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: just the last two thing under #Conception and development Olliefant (she/her) 22:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant did both. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I cant find any further problems and the sourcing is good. Olliefant (she/her) 22:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

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.

Follow-up to FAC

@Gog the Mild @SchroCat @FrB.TG @RoySmith This article has been edited by both myself and @Olliefant to address your concerns and has additionally received a copy edit from the GOCE; I wished to receive your go-ahead before re-nominating the article to ensure all concerns from the prior FAC have indeed been addressed. I have done my best to address all of your concerns throughout the article, but want to make sure there are no other major gripes present that could potentially interfere with a further renomination. There is no issue if you do not wish to go through the article again, but if you are willing to look through it again I would appreciate any and all comments where applicable. Thanking you all for the initial reviews (And apologizing if any of my initial queries on your talk page were poorly constructed), and happy editing to you all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)