Talk:Ood/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 23:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OmegaAOL (talk · contribs) 15:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes:

• The grammar seems to be flawless. I'm glad to be able to review an article with good grammar.
• The lead is a sufficient length and touches on all the sections, although there does seem to be a disproportionately small amount of commentary on the Analysis section. Maybe make that sentence a small paragraph, and you're good on 1A and 1B.

• I'm not sure what else I would add without putting UNDUE weight onto particular sources. If you have any thoughts or ideas let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• The whole block on the enslavement of the Ood, which seems to be one of the most important in the article, only cites a single source.

• I do not see the issue here. It's pretty common practice to have a paragraph cited to only one source, and there is no guideline against doing this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a disqualifier per se, just a thing that would be 'nice to have'. I should have made this more clear. OmegaAOL (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Almost all of the Television paragraph is uncited.

• See WP:MOSPLOT, which states plot summary does not need to be cited to a secondary source so long as it is uncontroversial. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this. This is my first time working on or reviewing an article that involves a synopsis. My apologies. OmegaAOL (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Too much of the article relies on two particular books in Doctor Who: The Complete History. You should diversify your citations.

• I do not believe this should be an issue? There are plenty of cases with articles where they rely on larger sources, especially in cases of smaller topics such as this, and to my knowledge there is no policy against it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There isn't, and this is again, not a disqualifer, but it would be better to have multiple sources is all. (Outside the scope of GA, should have made it clear). OmegaAOL (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Small grammar issue: The physical design was made (by) Neil...

• Fixed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• You need to explain to the reader what the Ood-Sphere is.

• This is already done. See the second paragraph of "Characteristics": "...the Ood are a peaceful race that hail from a planet known as the Ood-Sphere." If more needs to be added let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I will admit I missed that; I realized that I forgot to search for it ten minutes after I finished the first part of this review. OmegaAOL (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Link to black hole.

• Done. Admittedly wasn't sure if this needed to be linked or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• The block The Ood ... symbol on it is rather large, but only has a single citation.

• Per above. There's no issue with single citations so long as there are no major WP:CLOP or WP:COPYVIO issues, which I have taken steps to avoid. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• You have done a good job on the layout of the article, something I see rarely.

• Thank you! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a paragraph like The Ood have been the subject of analysis by various sources. Parallels between the in-universe treatment of the Ood and real-world instances of slavery and exploitation, in particular, have been a topic of significant discussion. In addition, some say that the Ood are demonized and given the othering treatment not because of any wrongdoing on their part, but rather due to their different preferences and priorities as a culture. It gives a lot of weight to these sources, I know, but it is merited when so much of the article is dedicated to such analysis. I think that this paragraph treats all the analyzers equally. OmegaAOL (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If you look at everything I mentioned above, I will be happy to promote this excellent article to Good Article status.

• @OmegaAOL: Thank you for the review! Please let me know on the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I am going to pass the article. I am also replacing the last sentence with a paragraph that I feel gives equal weight to both points raised in the Analysis section. Thank you for this very entertaining, well-written article. OmegaAOL (talk) 19:30, 30 October 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.