Talk:Doctor Who series 8/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Doctor Who (series 8)/GA1)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Alex 21 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


I will review this one over the next couple of days. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    The prose is clear, I have further suggestions, but there are no major probelms. See notes below Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Article is consistent with British English and there are no spelling or major grammar problems detected with Word or grammar and spell checker on jstor.com Footlessmouse (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    Note that while it is not required, its style is consistent with the previous seven series all of which are GA. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Compliant with MOS:LEAD, short statement, first sentence, and first paragraph define the series and the lead indicates notability and summarizes the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No layout problems and order is correct. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    All WP:W2W problems I found were addressed by nominator. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There are no problems with boundaries in writing about fiction, the plots are restricted to a table. All information is verifiable, each episode has its own article. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The lists are appropriate and consistent with articles on seasons. They are cited and organized Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    No notes, reference section is proper. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    Sources are reliable for what they are used for, no contentious statements about living persons, figures are cited, everything not cited is readily verifiable and uncontestable. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    C. It contains no original research:  
    No synthesis or original research a borderline case was resolved. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    copyvios search using turniting, search, and links does not reveal any problems. The article contains one medium-length quote which is repeated in multiple sources and the titles of the episodes appear verbatim often. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    It covers all major aspects of the series and is consistent with the coverage of notable sources and the other Doctor Who series. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    It stays focused on the series and no unnecessary detail, the article follows the recommendations of MOS:TV in the lead and plot sections. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    Article remains encyclopedic and does not expound on controversies. No editorial bias. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    No edits for over a month, since September 15th. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    Contains five total images with different licenses:
    Proper Non-free use reasonsings are given for File:Doctor Who Series 8.jpg and File:Doctor Who title 2014.png Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    File:Steven Moffat by Gage Skidmore.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    File:Peter Capaldi 2009 (cropped).jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    File:Jenna Coleman by Gage Skidmore.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    Non-free use images, screenshot of title screen and DVD cover art, are necessary for the encyclopedia page. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Other images, of the two stars and the executive producer are also relevant. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Image captions were fixed per suggestions below and are now suitable. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Great job on the article Alex 21!! And thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Initial review

edit

Upon initial review with help of Word, I have not found any major spelling errors, but the article will need to be checked thoroughly for consistency with British English. I found several grammar and have listed them in the subsections below. Feel free to add a Template:Done or Template:Not done underneath each as you complete, please provide an explanation for rejecting a fix. I will expand and rename the other section as I complete reviews of the article for the various criteria. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Additional spell check was performed using jstor.com to check compliance with British English variety. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Resolved issues 19 October 2020

Fixes

edit

Suggestions

edit

Images

edit

Words to watch

edit

I have used User:Danski454/w2wFinder to go through words to watch:

Lead

edit

I found several problems related to MOS:LEAD:

  • Please fix the intro to the article as per MOS:LEADORDER. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead should summarize the article, but it hits you with a whole lot of information that isn't represented in the body, including:
    • The fact that it was officially ordered on the 20th of May is only mentioned in the lead. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The head writer and executive producers are only introduced in the lead, they should be introduced as such in the body as well, the lead should not contain information that can't be verified in the body. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Development section doesn't discuss it as Capaldi's first time to star as the doctor and the first appearance of the Twelfth Doctor, that section assumes you read and remember the intro first. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Discussed in other sections, but I will have more notes. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • story arc is mentioned in the lead but isn't expanded on in the body, just short synapsis for each episode, which is a notable aspect of the series as a whole as demonstrated by reliable sources. Story arc is also unreferenced the only time it appears, this currently violates multiple GAC. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Footlessmouse (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
      •   Question: I'd say that the episode synopsis is the expansion of the lead's story arc content. As per MOS:TVPLOT, we are only meant to summarize in the episode table and not have multiple sections dedicated to plot; [a]ll articles should contain a few sentences in the lead to summarize the overall storyline, generally done via a non-copyrighted logline or preview summary. "Story arc" is mentioned twice; once in the lead as a summary, and the second in regards to Gomez's appearance, where it is sourced. -- /Alex/21 01:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The only time the phrase "high acclaim" appears is in the lead with no sources. The only other time acclaim of any kind is mentioned is in reference to two individual episodes. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions

edit

Hold

edit

I will have more notes, but some of my complaints above may will require fairly major changes, I will put the article on hold for now. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the hard work! I've reread the article again and don't see any major issues. Once the issues in Other are resolved, I will go back over everything and evaluate for MOS. Otherwise, everything is looking great. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pass

edit

After carefully rereading the article again, comparing to similar articles, and going back over the relevant policies, I'm going to go ahead and pass this. I have a few suggestions above that I think could improve it a bit, but at this point the GA criterea are met. The meaning of each sentence and each paragraph is clear and concise and that is all that is required. All of my other critiques were fixed in a timely manner. Thanks for the hard work! Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks! I'll still make a few of the edits in the suggestion section even though it's passed, just to clean the article up again. Thanks again for your help! -- /Alex/21 04:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply