Eisspeedway

Talk:Peter Capaldi

Good articlePeter Capaldi 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.
Featured topic starPeter Capaldi is the main article in the Peter Capaldi series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
November 1, 2024Good article nomineeListed
November 23, 2024Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 11, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Doctor Who star Peter Capaldi was a fan of the series as a child?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Capaldi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


OlifanofmrTennant, thank you for working on this article and bringing it to GAN, but it doesn't look to be ready for nomination just yet. The article currently uses a WP:PROSELINE structure and seems more like a disjointed set of facts rather than an encyclopedic treatment. The career section needs some restructuring before it meets the "well-written" criterion; MOS:PARA is also relevant here. The personal life section might benefit from some tightening as well.

The article could also benefit from more content to meet the requirement of broad coverage: after reading the career section, I still don't know much beyond what roles he played and when. I suggest comparing the article's career section with the one at Matt Smith#Career. The latter still has some list-like descriptions, but it reads more smoothly and places the sequence of events in context. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#Career

I started editing, and I'll continue tomorrow; I think the best way to remove the WP:Proseline, is using the already divided 5 sections as follows: -1991= movies, plays, TV guest appearences and TV films - 1992-2005=bigger TV roles, start as writer/director, radio plays - 2005-2012=Malcolm Tucker primarily- 2013-2017= The Doctor primarily- 2018-= general stuff. We can use the filmography articles for references, in addition to the ones already in the article, @OlifanofmrTennant DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant, I have done #1, 4 and 5 out of 5, and shortened the personal life section slightly; can you check what we should change to make these three more compatible with MOS:PARA and less WP:Proseline/ make them, and see if there are any other issues that we can/should fix before bringing it to GAN. I'll do the other two parts tomorrow DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill try and incoperate some reviews Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant I have done #2 and 4 too, I'll look for reviews too and what else we can do. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant, found anything yet? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
honestly I haven't really been looking Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant I can't see any problems in the article, and it seems good enough for a GA to me, so I'm planning to nominate it in a little while, after adding a couple of paragraphs. You can be a co-nom, if you like? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to nominate it a while ago but it completly slipped my mind. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning the same, but decided to wait a little, in case some issue came up. Btw, I added the couple of paragraphs, nominating it now.(edit-oh, you already did LOL, good) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your intrested in conoming feel free to add yourslefQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done checkY DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Capaldi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 15:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs)

I will review this shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Checked every 8th reference and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. I'm going to put this article on hold until the nominators can get back to me on my feedback. Pinging OlifanofmrTennant and DoctorWhoFan91. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well sourced, understandable, neutral, broad, and well written. Pass. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was given an award for "Outstanding Contribution to Film & Television" at the Scottish BAFTAs. Was this award for a specific performance? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was similar to lifetime achievement award. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capaldi at the 2019 GalaxyCon Richmond
Capaldi at the 2019 GalaxyCon Richmond
Improved to Good Article status by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]