# Talk:Doctor Who series 8

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)

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)

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)

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


### 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)
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)
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)
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)
No layout problems and order is correct. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
All WP:W2W problems I found were addressed by nominator. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
The lists are appropriate and consistent with articles on seasons. They are cited and organized Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
C. It contains no original research: 
No synthesis or original research a borderline case was resolved. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Other images, of the two stars and the executive producer are also relevant. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Image captions were fixed per suggestions below and are now suitable. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
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)


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


### 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)
 Done Merged. -- /Alex/21 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
 Done Converted both quotes to prose. -- /Alex/21 05:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"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)
 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)
Writing Either expand or make a list. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Also not required for GA as far as I can tell. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
 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)


### 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)
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)


### 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)

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)

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)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Courtney Woods (basketball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)