Talk:Doctor Who series 8/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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

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

The Half-Face Man falls to his death from an hot-air balloon => the an should be a. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saibra is later caught by the Teller, and activates an atomic shredder => remove the comma. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
woman called Mrs Pitt has => there should be a full stop after Mrs. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danny tells Clara he wants to know the truth about her travels with the Doctor, and asks her to think about it first => remove the comma. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leeching => leaching Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
St => St. or Saint Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, note: Although it was the title of a source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~"revitalizing" => "revitalising" Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)~~ Footlessmouse (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Doctor reunites with Clara" => "The Doctor was reunited with Clara" Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason for swapping between present tense, as used in every episode summary, to past tense for this one sentence? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the quick response @Alex 21:, it was noticed by software to be a spelling error, I have not had time to do a thorough review of the article yet. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - All good. Should I still swap the tense, or is it good as it is? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Only consistency is required as far as I can tell. And a clear distinction between the fictional world being described and the real world. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

school teacher => schoolteacher Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
have the ability to make => can make. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

On the Steven Moffat picture, can you provide an appropriate caption for the picture? Things he said can be put in the body of the article and are not relevant in a caption. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Updated to what he was actually doing in the picture, which is promoting the series at SDCC. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the double pic of Capaldi and Coleman, can you expand the caption to say more about who is pictured, rather than when two people were cast in the show? Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Updated to name their characters and their appearances (i.e. first series, continuing on from previous). -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please provide MOS:ALT for the images in addition to their captions. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Added alts of who is in the image. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the two non-free use images, please fill in the missing blanks in the Media data and Non-free use rationale template. Two fields are marked NA in both, and can see why, but it is easy to fill in "material is copyrighted and cannot be duplicated by third-party sources in a free format" and "it does not impede commercial opportunities for the copyright holders". Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Updated their summaries to their respective pre-filled "Non-free use rationale" templates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words to watch

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

'and the other three where he was credited as a "co-writer"' => this sentence is muddy, can it be reworded? Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "he received sole credit for four episodes, and was credited as a co-writer for the remaining three" -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It also received high acclaim from critics, with praise going to the writing, directing, and acting." => This may be original research, please provide a direct citation for it, reword to summarize the reviews that follow and nothing more, or remove it. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "Critical reaction to the series was highly positive, with praise going to the writing, directing, and acting, with a number of individual episodes receiving critical acclaim." -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Uses the word "since" a little too often" Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Updated the two in the Episode section and one in the Casting section. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Doctor and Clara are called to a restaurant, only to find it is part of a spaceship that crashed in the past and is filled with humanoid robots." => reword to exclude phrase "only to find" maybe "where they find". Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which then climbs into orbit where it detonates harmlessly" => "which then climbs into orbit and detonates harmlessly" Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Saibra is later caught by the Teller and activates an atomic shredder. Psi soon follows when caught by the Teller, and Clara and the Doctor gain access to the vaults of the bank" => Reword for clarity and avoid W2W if possible. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "Saibra is later caught by the Teller and activates an atomic shredder to dissolve herself, and Psi soon follows her in the same manner." -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"also known as the Nethersphere" => "also called the Nethesphere" (only a suggestion) Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Doctor soon discovers" => "The Doctor then discovers" Footlessmouse (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

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]
- Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 20 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]
  - Done Added content and moved source to body. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 20 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]
  - Done Added to body with additional source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 20 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]
    - Thanks, I had not read that one previously. You appear to be correct. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I noticed that it said story arc in the body, but it didn't say anything about the story arc there. The guideline is sufficient, though. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:11, 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]
  - Done As detailed in previous section. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

"Capaldi had previously appeared on the show as Caecilius in "The Fires of Pompeii". He also played John Frobisher in the Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood: Children of Earth." => combine, doesn't even need a reference if it's readily verifiable by any resource at hand (Google) it is common knowledge. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Merged. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Development section should be expanded touching on the highlights of development in prose form, rather than extended quotes, which can be included in references with the |quote= parameter. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At the least, one of the two block quotes can be converted into an inline quote so that it doesn't break flow. Note, this is not required for GA as far as I can tell. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Converted both quotes to prose. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"while still willing to write for Doctor Who, his schedule may mean it not being possible for this upcoming series" => rewrite for clarity Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "The subsequent success of his drama series, Broadchurch, led Chibnall to state that his schedule would not allow him to contribute to this particular series, although he was willing to write for Doctor Who in the future." -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing Either expand or make a list. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also not required for GA as far as I can tell. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The series is the eighth to air following the programme's revival in 2005, and is the thirty-fourth season overall. It is also the first series since series five not to be split into two parts. => combine these. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "The series is the eighth to air following the programme's revival in 2005, the thirty-fourth season overall, and the first series since series five not to be split into two parts." -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

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

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]