Doctor Who series 8 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 21, 2020. ( Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who series 8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC ( See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. ( See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 3 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Doctor Who series 8 (2014). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727233412/http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema to http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822054718/http://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-series-8-writers-line-up-starts-to-take-shape.php to http://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-series-8-writers-line-up-starts-to-take-shape.php
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/will-oswald/54/9a7/373?trk=pub-pbmap
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082820/http://doctorwhoworldwide.com/2014/08/18/series-8-episode-3-leaks-online-to-file-sharing-networks/ to http://doctorwhoworldwide.com/2014/08/18/series-8-episode-3-leaks-online-to-file-sharing-networks/

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

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

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

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

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

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