Talk:The Twin Dilemma

The Twin Dilemma is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) at 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

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

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Target novelisation

"His convulated explanation of how the regenerative process works"? Could we get a quote for this point, please; it sounds hilarious. NP Chilla 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening titles

I'm pretty sure this is not the first opening credit where two pictures are used for the doctor... one serious and one smiling... I seem to remember it happening in the opening credits for the third doctor, too, at least. 142.76.1.62 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.104.183.25 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening titles did not feature the Doctor until the eleventh season. In that season (which was the last Jon Pertwee season), a full-length picture of the Doctor was used in the opening titles, but not a face-only, or head-and shoulders, pic. Further, it was a single photo, so did not change expression. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction, opening titles featuring an image of the Doctor started with Patrick Troughton way before season 11. DonQuixote (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh rats, my bad, you're quite right of course. Those used a single photo, no change of expression, which is I think what the original poster is querying. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden message

Would it be noteworthy to include the fact that some of the computer graphics on display contain (in teletext form) a hidden message from, I think, Dave Chapman, the effects supervisor? I don't have a translation of it at the moment, but can rustle one up if I can find the screenshot. David (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the message is as follows: "mon nom bog off you twit ass face bu"/"dr who rules ok so does daves progra". I'm not kidding, that's genuinely what two lines of the block teletext graphics in episode one translate as. David (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 16:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 00:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be doing this for GARC. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:48, 25 January 2025 (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:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Discussion

For the images, they all have captions where necessary and the two that need them have fair use rationales. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any edit warring. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not too detailed, I don't think it needs more major aspects either. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the whole article, there were many mistakes but I think I got them all. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck