Talk:Doctor Who series 8

Latest comment: 6 months ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress

Tardis modifications

edit

Should the modifications made to the console room set be mentioned under design changes? It's not a new set per se, but there are significant differences when compared to the set used in Series 7 & the 2013 specials. Status: Stuck in the Vortex (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Colour contrast problems

edit

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who (series 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Who (series 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 8)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Move discussion in progress

edit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply