Talk:Sixth Doctor/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Doomitron (talk · contribs) 02:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Always good to see another editor working on fictional characters from this series! I'll take a fine tooth comb to this next week once my finals are wrapped. For the short term, glancing over the article, a few small notes:

-I'd advise condensing the Appearances section down to something akin to Dalek. Having "Other Appearances" be a split off of the "Biography" section is a bit confusing for those unfamiliar with the series, and should likely just be split into what happens in the main series versus what happens in spin-off media (With sub-headings for different types of spin-offs, i.e audios, novels, etc).

-Similarly, I'd turn the bullet points for list into prose. For example, for video games, perhaps something like "The Sixth Doctor appears in the video games X, X, and X." Doesn't need to be anything crazy if sources don't back it up further, but it's better for readability. Similarly for other sections, though you probably shouldn't list every novel or audio the character's in and instead keep it to general summaries and noteworthy appearances like you do in other parts of the article.

-I'm seeing a significant lack of developmental information on this character. There is info on casting and costume, but not on how the character was written, scripted, etc. There is also little to no reference of the character's retirement and Baker's firing as well, alongside the events that led up to that.

-The second paragraph of reception is nearly entirely developmental information; this should likely be shifted into a development category alongside any new information like listed above.

-"Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 1: 1984-1987" is an unreliable source due to being published through Lulu.com, which is on the source blacklist. This reference should either be substituted or removed unless author credentials can be established.

-Similarly, this article uses a number of sources deemed unreliable for use on-wiki. These include Metro (72), Doctor Who TV (30, 32, 47), the above Lulu book, WhatCulture (44), CultBox (31), Doctor Who Online (53). Additionally a number of questionable sources of unestablished reliability (Winter is Coming, Geek Girl Chicago, Film Stories, TopGearBox at a glance) that should likely be replaced by stronger sourcing unless there is justification for their inclusion.

-Some of the book sources should be converted to SFNs (Like how Pixley's Doctor Who Magazine issue is being cited, for example) instead of all being duplicate citations. Let me know if you need help with this.

@Doomitron: I'll look over proseline more closely in time but these are big issues jumping out at me that should likely be addressed before progressing to that stage. That being said I am quite impressed with the level of high quality sourcing being used (Particularly from books by major publishers), and the added content looks good at a glance. This has potential to reach GA status, but will need some work put in to match other articles of similar quality level. I understand you're pretty new to this and this is a very big and daunting list of concerns, so let me know if you have any questions or concerns of your own, or if I can help with anything at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the review. I'll try to respond to each point separately.

-This is fair and should be an easy change to make, it should help cut down on some of the redundancies with repeating The Last Adventure's plot synopsis twice in the article, too.

-Agreed. I was considering doing the same with the audio dramas subsection (a lot of referenced miscellaneous audio drama title dropping, far too much to realistically source and manage, this is the same on the Fifth Doctor article too I plan on working on later) with the novels one, but was hesitant about scrapping a lot of the preexisting material from before I began editing.

-Also agreed, I noticed the second paragraph related more towards the characterization of the Doctor more so than general audience reception, but I thought the material was worthwhile to keep and didn't want to begin the process of creating a Development section mid-GA nomination review. I'm conflicted on what else to add to Reception if I remove it though, I feel as if most of the article's bases have been covered as it stands but it seems short. I might write more on the uproar over the perceived violence of the era since I recall it being a prominent talking point, but again I'm conflicted on how much that might relate more towards Development since being an 80s-style action hero archetype was a prominent point of the Doctor's TV portrayal from the sources collected already. Feedback on this would be appreciated if possible.

-Do you know a manner in which I may establish authorial credibility for this source beyond the publisher in order to keep it, as a possible way to avoid needing to scrap it altogether? It seems a good source, and credible sourcing on the DWM comic strips appear very scant from my research so far. Feedback would be appreciated.

-This is fair, a lot of the book sourcing can overtake some of these I believe. In the case of Geek Girl Chicago this was present before I began editing the article heavily, it seems to be an interview with Colin Baker which quotes him directly, I don't know if an exception may be granted in circumstances like that. Similarly this wasn't mentioned in your review but I was curious if when I used a Big Finish press release which quotes him later in the article if this may violate potential primary sourcing concerns, or if just using it to provide the direct quote from him made it possibly permissible. I was under the impression Doctor Who TV was a credible source if only because glancing at other DW-related articles (ie Ninth Doctor and Twelfth Doctor) I saw it used there, if I can get definite clarification on whether this is something I'll need to exclude that would help, its a useful source if only because for later DW-media around the mid-2010s, credible sourcing, especially for Big Finish audios, suddenly becomes harder to come by and the source was able to help, so in those instances I found it useful to have.

-I'm unfamiliar with how this works so if you could help it'd be greatly appreciated, it'd save me some time to in having to duplicate the sourcing for the books throughout the article as I've been doing at times.

@Pokelego999: Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated. Good luck with your finals. Doomitron (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron To respond to some of the points above:

-I am unopposed to the creation of a development section during the process of the review if you are alright with working on it, I'm pretty lenient so long as I feel it's realistically feasible for the nominator to accomplish. I am also happy to help if need be, since I can dig through some sources for more info (I own the book Doctor Who: The Eighties for example which may be helpful).

-As for reception, perhaps check for analysis of the Sixth Doctor's character? For example, this book contains some decent bits about his characterisation, violence against Peri, etc. Try searching through Books and Scholar for some hits on this, though I will note Books' search function is iffy at best at times. I can also do a search through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for some hits if you need it, since I believe you don't have access to that yet and it has access to a lot of good resources.

-For the Lulu source, unless the author is a subject matter expert or credible author on the topic, it should be removed. For examples of what I mean, if it was published by a professor familiar with media studies, or if it was published by like JNT himself or something, I could see it having use cases, but if it's just some random person then it'd be better off removed. Do some digging and see what you can turn up on them.

-Geek Girl Chicago should be fine, I admittedly only glanced at it and didn't see it was an interview, which should be fine since it is coming from the person themselves, just make sure to treat it as a Wikipedia:PRIMARY source. Big Finish should also be fine for similar reasons (Especially since it's coming from the company itself).

-Doctor Who TV was used widely for many years until about a year or so ago when editors cracked down on its usage. The most pertinent discussion is here where editors unanimously agreed it failed Wikipedia:BLOG. This is not to be confused with the official website, which uses the Doctor Who.TV name, but the fan site should not be used under any circumstances in articles; many old usages still persist however because of how widely it was used back in the day, and because of how few of these articles have been properly redone or rewritten since then.

-For sourcing comics and audios, I'd just source what you can; at worst saying "The Sixth Doctor appears in a number of audios and comics" should suffice. Source what you can, and at worst you can cite the drama or comic itself, though this is case by case and less useful for a character with a history as big as the Sixth Doctor's.

-For SFNs, I used them at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, so you can try using that as an example. I am unsure if you are using source or visual editor (I use visual) but how I use it is by making a bibliography at the bottom of the page, using Template:Cite book (Or whatever relevant citation style is most pertinent) in the article itself in that section for whatever source you're citing. Then, I insert Template:Sfn and fill in relevant fields (In this case, author last name, year of publication, page numbers) and then you should be good to go, as it should pull from the cite book template in the bibliography section. At worst, try pulling from the list I linked above and following how I did it there. Let me know if I can clarify further since admittedly I'm newer to them myself and they're very confusing initially.

I believe this addresses all your major points. Thank you for the well wishes, let me know what I can clarify further. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I've added a Development section you can take a look over whenever possible and point out anything that might need further work on. Also Doctor Who TV and the previous comic story references have been removed and replaced (I'll need to further find a replacement for WinterIsComing.net if I'm able, otherwise may need to remove the information its citing altogether if no alternative can be found).

I will provide further work on the Reception section in the future, and the SFN sourcing which I'm still unfamiliar with will need to be given some time for me to better comprehend. One minor aspect I'll still need to do that I'm aware of is the Video game subsection, which I anticipate will be very easy to find sources for so I'm putting it on the backburner for the time.

Thank you for your time again. Doomitron (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron sounds good. The development sections looks decent at a glance so far. Take your time, and I'll provide some more thorough comments in a few days' time once my finals are over.

One small thing I will say is make sure you use italics instead of quotations for Classic stories. Serials use formatting like this: Attack of the Cybermen (1985) versus modern episodes which are formatted like this: "Rise of the Cybermen" (2006). Since I imagine this is an annoying formatting thing to resolve I figured I'd point it out now rather than substantially later into the review. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, full prose review incoming. I will save the spotcheck for after this is tackled.

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses two fair use images.

Lead

-The first and second paras should likely be merged (With the first para acting as the intro for the second para).

-"would be at the end of the Fifth Doctor's" I'd change this to listing the season of the Fifth Doctor's instead (So something like "would be in the final story of the show's twenty-first season,". Perhaps the "two seasons" comment could be adjusted to say something like "The Sixth Doctor appeared in the show's twenty-second and twenty-third seasons" since there aren't so many seasons where this listing is unreasonable and helps with clarifying his unique situation appearances-wise. It also helps with clarifying the season 23 debacle later.

-Make sure to hyperlink the show's seasons as well.

-"who audiences are introduced to after the Doctor had already met her in-universe" This is a bit confusingly worded, I'd just axe this chunk since I feel the definition of her being from his future works well enough.

-I feel the paragraph on season 23 is quite large and more than needed, since much of it is about the season on the whole rather than just the character. I'd trim down to something like "Baker's second season, and the show's twenty-third, were cancelled during development... leading to a season focused on the Doctor being on trial" (Use your best judgement, but try to keep it brief).

-The lead has no information on how the character was conceived and created, how Baker was casted, and the reception to his character. These should all be discussed in some capacity.

Casting, Development, and Costume

-A few bigger comments on these. Firstly, should these not be after the biography? Much of this is based off knowing what happens in the Biography, so I feel it would be better placed after then so as to not frontload readers with all this dev info immediately. Secondly, these three sections should likely all be under one large "Development" heading. It isn't quite clear why they're split when they're all about the development of the character. Obviously they are all warranting of a separate subheading, but each having their own heading seems a bit odd to me.

-The McCoy bit in Casting feels a bit to me like trivia. It doesn't really pertain to Six a lot and could probably be scrapped.

-Isn't Nathan-Turner the producer, rather than the showrunner?

-I'd trim the first two paragraphs of the third paragraph in "Development", and move the Peri bits up to the prior one. Those seems useful for understanding the character's portrayal, but I feel the other bits fall under what is already described in the second paragraph.

-The final paragraph in development (Prior to the Hiatus section, discussing his battle with the Cybermen) feels much more like analysis than developmental information, particularly the bits of him reading as a masculine action hero, since it's largely observations by critics rather than outright intent from the development team as it currently reads.

-"In the eighteen-month period between when Doctor Who left and, after fan campaigning, returned to the airwaves, Saward and regular scriptwriter Robert Holmes would come together and devise the idea for The Trial of a Time Lord." This is uncited.

-Make sure to hyperlink the Valeyard.

-Source 46 in Costume (The DoctorWhoSite source) I'm fairly certain is not reliable. Its link is also dead.

-I'm not sure the fair use is justified for the blue costume since it's just his usual costume, albeit blue, which isn't exactly too hard to imagine for readers.

Biography

-Make sure to include actor credits in the prose, like done at other articles (Such as at Fourteenth Doctor) since this is considered standard in the project. For example, this would look like "The Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker) did so and such..."

-I'd merge the second and third paragraphs together, perhaps with a linking sentence like "He would continue engaging in many further adventures with Peri."

-Sil should likely be mentioned when discussing the Doctor's enemies, since he is discussed in the subsequent paragraph. Also make sure to hyperlink him

-Specify the High Council is the High Council of the Time Lords.

-I'd link Mindwarp earlier when its events are discussed, since that is the story those events are depicted even if they take place in the past.

-I'd delink the Eleventh Doctor from listing his twelfth incarnation, since it is never stated in the show that the Eleventh Doctor is tied to the Valeyard, and the statement defining the Valeyard is vague enough to where it is not confirmation one way or another.

-Define what the Guardians of the Edge are briefly.

-Specify Tales of the TARDIS is a spin-off series (The spin-off show Tales of the TARDIS...)

-"a fate revealed at the end of The Ultimate Foe (1986)" This is already explained earlier above, so this bit is not needed.

-" The episode chosen to represent his television era" Without knowing the premise of this show, this statement is a bit confusing. I'd just shorten it to "The pair recount the events of Vengeance on Varos..." (Which is already hyperlinked above, so no need to hyperlink it again).

-Baker does not need to be linked again in the comics section. Similarly, Mel does not need linking in the novels section, and other characters do not need to be linked again if already linked above in the overall heading.

-The book "Companions: Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants" discusses some of the Sixth Doctor's more obscure companions, such as Grant, the fellas from the Ultimate Adventure, and Emily Chaudhry and Will Hoffman, on page 174. This might be helpful to add, and I can provide details if need be since I own the book physically.

Reception

-"Future Doctor Who showrunner Chris Chibnall was one critic of the Sixth Doctor era from the time, describing the show's writing in a segment of Open Air as "cliched" and "very routine."" Not sure this is super relevant since he isn't exactly a critic with authority here (He may be a future showrunner, but at this point he is not).

-Metro should be removed due to it being an unreliable source.

Overall

@Doomitron: Prose is relatively solid, and hopefully these comments help with tightening things up. I understand you're still actively working through things, and I know this is a big heap of comments, so take your time with incorporating these. Let me know if you have any questions or comments I can clarify at all. I'll do the spotcheck once the above comments are all addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive review, I'll get around to implementing the changes you listed in the coming days. Although there are a few points I'd wish for clarification on further if possible.

-Would you want me to relocate the preceding Hiatus paragraph to Reception in that case or remove it altogether?

-For the fair use image in the Costume section, this was present before I began editing, but I'd make the case it does serve a purpose if only because, and this is also addressing the DoctorWhoSite reference note, I have been unable to retrieve a source within any literature or from a credible website for the Sixth Doctor's blue costume with regards to Big Finish. Within the fandom itself, I'm aware it is a very popular topic with the Sixth Doctor that he has a blue suit later in his EU Biography in Big Finish stories and that it signifies a contrast between himself and earlier incarnations, such as in stories like The Wrong Doctors and The Quin Dilemma, but I have failed to find any sources that can help support this for the article. I am unaware how Wikipedia would address cases like this, so I imagine having the fair use image satisfies the need to address this when a reference itself isn't available, while also not relying on a dodgy source for it, but I'm not as familiar with it as you probably are. If that doesn't hold up for you I can remove both, but in that situation we wouldn't have any reference to the blue suit's appearance in Big Finish, only in the webcast Real Time which was separate from the Big Finish audio stories themselves and I feel that would be a mistake, but I'm beholden to what's permissible of course. You can let me know how you want me to go about handling this.

-I figured for the companions I wouldn't go into deep cut mentions for characters such as Grant Markham and the Ultimate Adventure ones, if only because in the overall scheme of the Sixth Doctor they weren't as heavily prevalent as Evelyn, Brigadier, Frobisher etc. (Grant Markham only has two VMA appearances, the Ultimate Adventure companions appear in the stage show and a Big Finish follow-up and are technically shared with the Third Doctor due to stage show recasting). If you would want them included though, I could do that, although I'm not sure if you want me to put them with the subsection formats they appeared in or make a separate Companions subsection in that case.

-I'd argue in favor of keeping Chibnall's comments, if only because he is a prominent figure (at the time no, but since then yes). I saw his comments reflected across multiple sources in both print and online, and could add them if necessary for establishing relevance. But if you wished them removed altogether I will do so.

@Pokelego999: Thanks again, I will work on addressing your points in a few days' time. Doomitron (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron

-The hiatus paragraph is likely fine in the development section; it's important to the development of the character overall, especially as to why he was removed from the show.

-For Wikipedia, if we cannot find a source to verify this information, we cannot include it on the encyclopedia. In this case, this information should thus be removed if no source can be found. One way you could potentially verify it is citing to the sources as PRIMARY media, but I assume he uses it enough where that is not feasible unless it is outright stated in a Big Finish podcast or interview somewhere.

-No worries on companions, figured I'd bring it up in case you were looking for them but couldn't find a source. They are covered at the Companion article anyways, so it's not a must to include them.

-What do you mean by his thoughts being reflected? As in the same sentiment is shared in other sources, or other sources are directly referring to his statements? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I believe I've managed to incorporate all the requested changes. I went to the liberty of removing the Chibnall comment as its contested and I wouldn't want it delaying GA certification regardless, although what I meant was I saw the sources referring directly to them. We can revisit that later if you're interested in me digging them up, or we could just leave it be. For the Hiatus paragraph I actually meant the paragraph within the other section relating to the analysis on the masculine portrayal of the Doctor, I moved it to Reception based on your prior comments, you can tell me if they work where they are or not. Only thing I didn't do was remove the fair use image of the Sixth in the blue costume as I'm not sure if we definitely decided on cutting it or not, just let me know and we can remove it easily (or you could, since its a simple fix, I still feel it is useful to the article but I won't contest whatever action you feel is necessary since you're more experienced with this than I). If there's any new problems that have cropped up let me know or anything else I need to add. Thanks again for your time. Doomitron (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron The stuff shifted to reception looks good. I'm happy to discuss the Chibnall stuff further if need be, either before or after the review; regardless of inclusion I won't pass or fail solely on those grounds. I do feel personally the blue costume picture should be removed, so if possible that should go. A few smaller prose alterations:

-The first two paragraphs of the lead should be merged.

-I feel the whole bit regarding the trial is a bit wonky chronologically since it's hopping between a lot of initial events and stuff that is revealed later. Perhaps lead instead with the introduction to Trial of a Time Lord, recount the important stories shown as evidence (Ravalox and Mindwarp stuff) and then include the reveal of the tampering evidence, Time Lord-Ravalox stuff, and the Valeyard's scheme afterward. That way chronologically it gels a bit better. This is a bit confusingly worded but hopefully this makes sense, but I feel the current way its written is a bit hard to understand if you haven't seen Trial.

Otherwise, spotcheck:

Spotchecked: 55, 89, 16, 30, 59, 74, 73, 60, 71, 84.

Unrelated to spotcheck, but I believe source 46 shouldn't link to an unofficial Youtube upload since it's not an official venue for the product. This should likely be removed.

-I cannot access 55, 30, 71, or 60. Quotations verifying this information would be appreciated. All other citations spotchecked check out however.

-73 and 74 use quotations for the bits they are verifying in the hatnote, but they do not apply for the bits they are verifying elsewhere in the body. This would likely be a good opportunity either for SFNs, though you could also remove the quotes overall as well.

-Make sure to add archive links to all references that are not books.

This should be all I have left remaining comments wise. Well done and great work so far, hopefully all of this hasn't been too much of a bother, and I apologize profusely if it has since I understand it's a lot (Especially for what I assume is your first GAN!) You're in the homestretch now, so pat yourself on the back. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification on anything. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Thank you for the feedback. Going over the requested quotes for the references and what they're citing:

- 55: I could use clarification for this as the citation has a quotation within it already, its taken from a continuity book and cites an instance of what the article is claiming with regards to "sparring verbally", the sentence also ends with another citation 56 which is meant to add onto the point about the Sixth and Peri being argumentative, 56 has the additional quote of "this tension, moreover, gave the Doctor and Peri the appearance of an old married couple". Let me know if this makes sense.

- 30: I rechecked the reference and it appeared to only list the book title, author, and release year but it didn't include a synopsis like the article was also stating, so I've replaced it with a new reference redirecting to the official BBC website which includes all of those but also includes a synopsis for Business Unusual. Let me know if this works for you.

- 71: This is mainly to cite the article calling the Trial of a Time Lord "metafiction", here is the quotation from the book: "The Lurkoser, the mutant product of a genetic experimentation, featuring in the fourteen-episode 'Trial of a Time Lord' story arc which followed an ominous eighteen-month hiatus in the programme's production (a metafictional season if there ever was one)".

- 60: The quotation from the book supporting the article's use is within its reference notes specifically note 23 for Introduction: "The case of the sixth Doctor and the planet Kolpasha is an example of this. One thing that everyone seems to be able to agree to is the extremely bad taste of this Doctor's coat, which he claims was tailored on this planet, the 'fashion capital of the universe' ('The Year of the Pig', writer Matthew Sweet, Big Finish audio, 2006)."

- 73 and 74: Due to not knowing how to work with SFNs I've removed the quotes as recommended from within the citations, although I believe instead of 74 you meant 12, since 74 didn't have a quote but 12 did and was cited multiple times.

I also reedited the lead to merge the paragraphs, although it looked too large to me and I separated it at the cutoff point "Preceded in regeneration by...", let me know if this works for you. I attempted to reedit the Trial portions in the Biography to clarify and have it be more comprehensible. Let me know if I succeeded or need to have another go at it. The fair use image of the blue suit has been removed from the article per your request. In regards to archive links, is there a possible browser plug-in or another means to have the website links be automatically archived that you know of for me to use? There is a large amount of websites cited and it'd save time if possible. Thanks again. Doomitron (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron I believe there's been some citation confusion here: I am referring to the refs in this diff. 55 here, for example, is for The Sixth Doctor Sourcebook instead of the Error Finder book; it seems some of your edits shuffled the citation numbers. Double check based off the old numbers in the linked diff to make sure all is good in any of the numbers missed. From what you included here it looks good, so once that is done I will consider the spotcheck completed.

The lead looks good. For archive links, click "View history" at the top of the page, click the option to "Fix dead links", and then follow the instructions and you should be good to go once the bot is setup and it starts running. It sometimes fails to get everything, though; if it does you'll have to add any remaining links manually. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Sounds good, sorry for the confusion. For citation 55 from that point in the article (now 54), this is for the "lapses in memory" portion of the sentence and I have the quotation for it as "The Doctor can no longer remember how to get to the Eye of Orion". The rest of the sentence is sourced to the AV Club citation next to it.

All of the links as far as I'm aware have now been archived. Doomitron (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Doomitron should be good to go. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)