Blink (Doctor Who) 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed August 17, 2025 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

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

Doctor Who Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (British TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy ProjectBBC 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. 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 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 (assessed as High-importance). Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

This article had a GA Review and was successfully promoted to GA quality. The review is at Talk:Blink (Doctor Who)/GA2. — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Blink (Doctor Who). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/steven-moffat-interview-2007/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/steven-moffat-interview-2008/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/creating-the-weeping-angel/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rZ6XiZty?url=http://constellations.tcon.ca/2008.shtml to http://constellations.tcon.ca/2008.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531095020/http://www.sfwa.org/news/2008/07nebwiners.htm to http://www.sfwa.org/news/2008/07nebwiners.htm

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) 20:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have listed this article for a peer review because I would like to see it become a FA-Class article and before I nominate it I would like to make sure it is as good as it can be!

Best wishes, Macaw*! 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently can’t give a full review with my schedule, but just from glossing over the article (as someone who knows nothing about Doctor Who other than that there’s doctors and supernatural stuff) I noticed that you name drop Doctor Who Annual but don’t elaborate on it. Could you include a sentence or two talking about what it is, it would make the article easier to understand for non-Who fans. Other than that, it’s a great article, I’m just sure that little tidbit will be brought up in the FA nomination. If you want me to take a further look and tell you of any other confusing parts you could elaborate on, I’d be more than happy to — Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hey, I went through the articles history and I don’t see any edits from you on it. Aren’t you supposed to be a significant contributor to the article before nominating it? Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an outsider, but technically they can so long as they've consulted key contributors who have given the go-ahead and are able to demonstrate they understand the article they're nominating (Aka know the sources, what the content is, etc), at least if I read the criteria right. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All images need alt texts.
• Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBurkRobert_Smith2012.
• The short citations need to be EFN tags.
• Please archive all sources as you have already done some.
• Some sources are missing source dates.

Considering I have never watched Doctor Who, some of the article is confusing to me.

• For example; what is a "Doctor Who Annual"?
• What is a "Yale key"?
• There should probably be a cast section.
• Why is Easter eggs captalised?
• What's a "DI"?
• Ping when done. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review shortly. —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: "The scenes at Wester Drumlins were shot in a derelict house in Newport." We do not know what "Wester Drumlins" means at this point.
• The third paragraph of the lead (as of this revision) is not flowing very well; various random facts stringed together.
• Plot: "explores the abandoned house Wester Drumlins a second time" either tell us what happened the first time, or drop "a second time" if it is not relevant.
• "an impounded fake police box" this is actually the TARDIS. Do they know it is "fake" at this point? I think all they know is that it is locked.
• Why not explain the reason the episode is called "blink"?
• Writing: is it worth spending a few words about the relevance of the game Statues?

More in a bit. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this diff, it seems that there has been not a huge amount of additions since 2012. Make sure that everything is up to date and look at every single citation to see if any links are dead or can be replaced by newer material. Overall, this doesn't seem ready for Peer Review at this time, as you haven't tried to make it as good as you can. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Macaw*: It has been over a month since the last comment on this. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, Sorry I have been quite busy this summer and haven't had much time to dedicate to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Macaw*! 19:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Macaw*: No problem: real life is more important. Instructions on how to close a peer review are at WP:PRG. I recommend the script. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]