Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==October 2011==
==October 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne, Queen of Great Britain/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korkoro/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korkoro/archive1}}

Revision as of 14:58, 11 October 2011

October 2011

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by DrKiernan 14:58, 11 October 2011 [1].

Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former featured article, which has been on the main page already, and now hopefully restored to glory. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a former featured article and has already appeared on the Main Page (links: WP:Featured article candidates/Anne of Great Britain; WP:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/archive1; WP:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/archive2). Ucucha (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • I'm surprised no one from Milhist has added our project's tag to this article yet, and I'd like to ask for feedback on that. Milhist generally tags an article on a head of state during a time of conflict, but when other wikiprojects are involved, we don't mind not tagging, or we can tag but take a back seat. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 53: do we have a date for the original entry?
  • Green just says "op.cit." without a date
  • Are the Britannica entries attributed to anyone?
  • Added
  • FNs 55 and 180 should be similarly formatted
  • 55 replaced
  • No citations to Somerset 2012
  • Removed.
  • Where is New Haven?
  • The source says "New Haven and London" without further disambiguation


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "St. James", "St. George", "St. Paul": I'm confused because I see them with and without the full stop.
  • "Lord Mulgrave (later the Duke of Buckingham)": I took the last bit out of the link; links to a name are general a noun phrase rather than noun phrase/adverb/noun phrase.
  • "Anne was reproached for showing no concern at the news of her father's flight, and instead merely asked for her usual game of cards.": If she was reproached for asking for a card game, then: "asking"
  • "as parliamentary governance unfolded ...": A plot can unfold; I'm not sure about governance.
  • "the traditional religious practice of touching for the King's evil ...": Some will want quote marks around the link; it depends a bit on whether you're comfortable relying on the link itself to perform the same function.
  • "to cause party faction.": Not familiar with "faction" in this sense.
  • "Sovereign": why uppercase?
  • "The leadership of the Admiralty, nominally under the control of Anne's husband, Prince George of Denmark, was unpopular amongst the Whig leaders. Anne was devastated by his death ...": Something doesn't work there.
  • "The Duchess arrived at Kensington Palace shortly before George died, and after his death insisted that Anne left Kensington for St. James's Palace against her wishes.": insisted that Anne leave? - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Just one point, and I generally stay away from making judgments on matters like these: two hidden comments seem to be saying that some of the text is copied verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Some editors will ask for quote marks when public domain text is copied, some will ask for attribution, some will ask for a notice somewhere on the page that some of the text is copied from the relevant PD source, and a few aren't happy with copied text anywhere in a FAC regardless of attribution. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lede is a bit choppy, but subject matter is tricky. Will muse on this and post more.
I'd link to wiktionary or explain "suppositious".
The prose uses lots of short sentences, which come over as a tad on the choppy side. I'm not seeing any overt clangers or deal-breakers but am looking to see if I can make the prose flow a little bit better.
Is there a single sentence that can be added (and sourced) that says she had a distant or difficult relationship with her father? It seems pretty obvious from reading but isn't explicitly stated anywhere
Is there no more commentary on her relationship with abigail which can be added? Is that discussed anywhere in sources?
The pop culture segment could do with some overriding sentences (if there are any) about whether portrayals are generally unfavourable or favourable

Anyway, I'll see what some others think of the prose and have a look-see later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An excellent article which is informative and in general a pleasure to read. Here are a few minor suggestions, and a couple (the last two) of slightly more substantial points.

  • I believe "Privy Council" should always be capitalised.
  • The neutral encylopaedic tone is missing in this extract (I have italicised the offending words): "Anne was dismayed. When Sarah forwarded an unrelated letter from her husband to Anne, with a covering note continuing the argument, Anne wrote back pointedly, "After the commands you gave me on the thanksgiving day of not answering you, I should not have troubled you with these lines, but to return the Duke of Marlborough's letter safe into your hands, and for the same reason do not say anything to that, nor to yours which enclosed it." (I must say I have some difficulty in working out what Ann was actually saying.) Later, the use for emphasis of the phrase "over and over" also militates against a neutral tone.
  • No reason is given for the "almost-square coffin".
  • "The Electress Sophia died on 8 June" → "The Electress Sophia had died on 8 June,...", followed by "so..." not "and so"
  • Don't you think that ten images of the Queen (not counting the coin) is a bit excessive? Why not use a few images of other contemporary figures, e.g. her father, the Churchills, the "Old Pretender", George of Hanover, etc? Her reign was full of great names, and some pics of them would provide some welcome variety in the presentation.
  • To me, the "popular culture" section adds nothing substantial to the article, while providing a possible magnet whereby drive-by editors can add all sorts of trivia based on period TV productions or other dubious sources. Why do you consider the section important or necessary?

I'm definitely leaning supportwards, and look forward to your responses to the above.Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cas and Brian, for reading through so carefully and for taking so much time and care over your reviews. I really do appreciate it, and I shall certainly act on your comments over the coming months. However, I now believe it was a mistake to nominate this article before the publication of Somerset's new biography, which could lead to re-drafting. I have decided to wait until I have read the newer works before proceeding with a third FAC.
Thank you to all the reviewers for their very sensible and welcome comments. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 13:10, 8 October 2011 [5].

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Discussion should be centered on the criteria listed at WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria, and is considered a WP:Good article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a primary editor of the page, I'm not disputing that its close to an FAC, as it has had a PR/CE, and the like. I will help anyway I can to address FAC commentors' suggestions, but I do have a slight bit of concern that there may be more work that I am unaware of in the prose. (However, I have assured that reliable sourcing is there, NFC is used where appropriate, etc. etc.). --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as one can likely see from this article, this nom can potentially attract a lot of off-site commenters due to the fandom. A caution to the FA moderators on that possibility. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - While this article is of unusual high quality (even though the bronies are the only reason why), a few issues remain (such as people bitching about EqD). This really should have been discussed before making a nomination in my opinion. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rainbow Dash. Can you provide more detail about what issues you feel are present in the article, with reference to the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue with this article is that it's a siamese twin. The reason is because you have two major areas, being the actual show and fandom. The truth is while the fandom can be split and easily be it's own article (hell, even a GA if I wanted to), the other area depends on it to be it's major organs (the massive amount of sources). My whole stance on the article becoming a FA, is that the fandom has to keep doing it's job by stirring media attention, in order for anything to happen. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I believe this article needs more work before it can be considered a featured article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All web sources need publisher info and access date
  • All print sources need page numbers
  • Who is Summer Hayes, and what are her qualifications?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? deviantart.com? http://thevoiceoftv.com? http://www.toymania.com? http://www.mylittleponynews.com?
  • Unreliable-source tag needs to be addressed
  • Check for formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Use a consistent date format
  • In general, citation formatting needs to be more consistent
  • The New York Times, not New York Times
  • Check that your wikilinks go where you want them to - for example, Top Gear
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
  • Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Twilight becomes close friends with five other ponies; Applejack..." is incorrectly punctuated
  • File:Mlp_fim_storyboard_sample.png: source link is dead
  • See here for a list of potentially problematic links
  • Don't use contractions in article text
  • Manual of Style issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"deviantart.com?" I knew that would come up, as it does in every review. The references are to Lauren Faust's personal deviantart. It is her personal site, and the main means to which she communicates with the fans.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equestria Daily is a situational source; it is a fanblog, but recognized as the foremost site for the show (as reported in more RS sources). As such, the references to ED are only for interviews with influential figures from the show (Faust, Thiessen), and not for other details. Deviantart.com, as Harizotoh notes, refer to known showrunners with pages there (Faust for sure). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need more details on EqD - what RSs are you referring to? Has this ever been discussed at RSN? For deviantart, Faust's pages would be considered primary/self-published and should be treated as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Friendship is Magic for EQD. And sure, Faust's DA page is a primary SPS source, but we're using it for her statements on the matter and not reporting of details she'd be unaware of. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe this article, while it does have a couple problems, is worthy of featured article status.--COOLTUX345 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please detail these problems and explain why you feel this article meets the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article may have some small problems, but as it is it provides excellent coverage on the topic. It is worthy of featured page status, as long as the errors are fixed. Biglulu (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please detail these problems and explain why you feel this article meets the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is not ready yet. There are numerous questionable sources, as outlined by Nikkimaria (do you have any commentary that proves their reliability? Something from WP:RSN perhaps?), and looking at Checklinks some are not even functional. I must also profess my astonishment that multiple people who have not edited in almost a year (and much longer) suddenly manage to find their way to this FAC page to scribble support less than 24 hours after it is nominated. If only all featured article candidates received so much attention! Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've cautioned, there's a significant fandom behind this show that this FAC is going to attract, and the fact that this article is at FAC was advertized on at least one of the sites; I've tried to caution offsite that driveby's don't help in the long run (though if they driveby and improve the article, all the better). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, please continue that effort, as drive-bys are not going to help this nomination. Melicans, I agree with you about sourcing, but given what Masem reports I think we can assume that the off-site canvassing is not the fault of the nominators, but just an unfortunate reality of these types of articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying, I'm trying. As for checklinks, I just ran it this morning and only one is reporting as a unreachable link as of today. Too early to be worried about a backup source for it. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Besides the issues raised by Nikkimaria above (which I agree with) the following also raise concerns for me. this, this, and this. Also, a number of websites lack publishers, and there are other inconsistencies. Keep in mind that it's not just "reliable" but "high quality" that is the determining factor for sourcing at FAC. You want your interviews to be from high quality journalists, not from fan sites. At the moment, too much of the sourcing is in my mind below the high quality threshold and I'm going to have to oppose until better sources are found. Obviously, the subject is being covered in the mainstream media, so we shouldn't be relying on fan sites for as much of this article as it currently does. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be difficult. It is not the show that is being covered in mainstream but the adult men's fascination with the show that is. An issue that this article has had is that we could spin off "brony" to its own article, which would be well sourced , etc. etc., but would considerably weaken the actual coverage of the show within this article. As such, it comes to rely more on what the fandom can get that talks actually about the show (eg interviews with the creators) than what mainstream media says about it - remember, if you subtract out the fandom, this is just a toyetic girls show on a cable network shown once a week - notable that it exists but certainly not going to be the subject of deep mainstream coverage; yet through the fandom, more coverage has been discovered.
As for two sources above, though both blog-like sources; Cartoon Brew is Jerry Beck's site, a notable expert in modern day animation and thus would be considered a expert source for opinion (as its used here) on animation. Boing Boing is written by experts in modern journalism and the impact of the Internet. Can't say much on the dailybarmoeter but I think we could remove it as most of the info is duplciation now from newer sources. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of spinning off Brony as its own article, that was already discussed. There was some consensus was to merge and create a redirect to the FiM article, which is what was done. The argument was that other fandoms (eg. Trekkies) have a lot more history and notability to them, and the FiM fandom has not reached that level yet. So it could be spun off in the future, but not now. [Link]--Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - Copyscape has revealed that 3% of the prose matches the summary given here [6]. The matching text is shown in bold here [7]. Could the nominator explain this please? Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a great topic, and the article is good, but I don't think it comes close enough to passing our FA criteria at this time. It is immediately apparent that the lede is inadequate and many sources are lacking. – Quadell (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article has the potential to be FA, and I have no doubt it will be eventually, but the time is not now. Nikkimaria has raised an excellent list of things which will need attending to before this article is prepared. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [8].

Korkoro

Nominator(s): morelMWilliam 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korkoro has come a long way, with two peer reviews and a successful GAN, developing from a stub to a GA in the last 2 months. Would like to see this take the last lap. morelMWilliam 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • The kinocritics source is no longer necessary as the facts it was being used to reference are already stated in other sources.morelMWilliam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammer to Nail is a high quality source for this subject. It is prominent in the indi circuit. The site was co-founded by Ted Hope, one of the prominent figures in the domain. Its editors are notable enough to have pages in indieWire too. Another indi movie magazine, Filmmaker (magazine) quite often features Hammer to Nail reviews such as this. I was also able to find this review published in Film Independent's website, which presents the Independent Spirit Awards. It is also not so uncommon to find Hammer to Nail's comments listed in the press releases of movies along with mainstream magazines. Now, that makes Hammer to Nail wiki page worthy! morelMWilliam 12:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrin is widely recognised as a reliable source by the academics for Roma studies. With google, I was able to find lots of academic papers using Patrin as a source, such as this University of Arizona paper and this Oxford paper. Stanford university lists Patrin as a reliable source for information on ethnic conflicts. Lots of books on the Roma have used Patrin as a source. (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). United Nations High Commission for Refugees recognises this as a reliable source. There have been articles on BBC and Natgeo too, using Patrin as a source. Was that convincing enough? morelMWilliam 13:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • Check references for typos
  • Don't italicize publisher names or locations
  • Fixed.
  • be consistent in when you provide locations
  • Make sure foreign-language sources are identified as such, but not English-language ones (for example, FN 17)
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Check for consistency between similar sources - for example, "Le nouvel Observateur" or "Le Nouvel Observateur"?
  • FN 36: page(s)?

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hi. Throughout the article in sections like Themes and analysis, Reception and basically anywhere you mention a review or observation from a writer you've written things like "an observation that was supported by Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama." But shouldn't that be "an observation that was supported by Odile Tremblay in Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama"? For the reviews you ought to name the writer because it isn't the publication itself that has that view, it's just their film critic. For some reviews such as Hammer to Nail you already have this and it should be a pretty easy change to make. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [9].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is of significant international political interest. It has been thoroughly reworked since the last nomination was withdrawn in July, and I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. I hope for it to achieve featured status in time for TFA on the first anniversary of the award (8 October), or failing that the first anniversary of the award ceremony (10 December). There is another window on 25 December, the second anniversary of Liu Xiaobo's incarceration. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to preface the review with a brief comment on citations: the online version of the South China Morning Post was used in the preparation of this article. The SCMP site does not display page numbers of the printed version; they have a strange way of archiving after a few weeks so that articles are no longer available using urls even with a subscription. Syndicated articles are not archived by SCMP, so I have added alternative sources as primary references where available, whilst retaining the SCMP citation. A small proportion of articles have no alternatives as they seem to be exclusives. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done (these were an issue last time, so they will need to be done at some point). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref for candlelight ceremony?
  • Why add (UK) for The Independent and not eg. The Guardian or The Times of Earth?
  • Be consistent in whether you use base URLs or publishers for web citations, and if the former how these are formatted
  • Why italicize News24 but not CNN? Check for consistency
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

  • You seem to have two different formats for quotations, rquote and quote, which look very different. Why?
  • There seem to be some organizational difficulties still. For instance, the first paragraph outside the lede is very short, comprising 2 sentences: the first about the candidates and the second about prize money. Then the next paragraph is about the candidates again.
  • Why is "Reactions inside China: Central government" separate from "Diplomatic pressure"? Both include difficulties in China-Norway relations. Does "Diplomatic pressure" deserve a top-level section rather than a subsection?
  • Some wikilinks use piped redirects that are uninviting for those not already familiar with the topic. For instance "the mothers" links to Tiananmen Mothers, and "the concert" links to Nobel Peace Prize Concert. I assume that the "|Democratic Party" link is a typo?
  • Most statements in the lede are not sourced, but some are (and some have 2 or 3 sources). There doesn't seem to be a reason. For instance, some direct statements in the lede are sourced, but others are not.
  • "Cyber sleuths" does not sound encyclopedic to me in an article like this.
Response to Quadell
  1. quote styles now unified
  2. related short paragraphs merged
  3. I've retitled and regrouped the sections: I feel the diplomatic pressure needs to be dealt with separately as it was an intense effort to pressure for a boycott that ran as a thread separate from the barrage of censorship propaganda and governmental condemnations.
  4. pipings now adjusted
  5. as the lead section is a summary of sourced material in the body, the refs are now all removed
  6. "Cyber sleuths" changed. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [10].

Russell T Davies

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I've been working on for the past eighteen months or so, previously nominated for FAC and recently been awarded GA status. I think it's time to subject this to another round against FAC reviewers. Since its previous nomination, I've streamlined sections that, in the past FAC, were seen to be too detailed, and slightly expanded some parts, and I've got it to what I believe is neither too detailed or not detailed enough (although I am aware it is a bit of a hefty article; well, he has been in the television industry for twenty-five years). As with most Doctor Who articles, the same question about the same sources always pops up; the answer is that FAC has often accepted them as RSes and I've heard of no reason to assume that has changed. Sceptre (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check formatting of quotes, particularly as regards MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Per WP:LAYOUT we're advised against using the subheading Bibliography in a bio, as the term can also mean books authored by the subject, and while some of the sources used fit that criterion one does not
  • Be consistent in the use of p for single and pp for multiple pages
  • Newspapers and other publications should be italicized
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • Be consistent in whether locations are provided, and if they are what information is included
  • Newspaper/magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
  • FN 149 vs 153, 163 vs 166: why the different formatting here?
  • FN 161: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines
    • Done.
    • Changed to "Sources".
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • See, I anticipated this. A Brief History of Time Travel cites its own sources, normally to the Doctor Who Magazine's special issues. I have no doubts as to the authenticity of information, but the only Doctor Who Magazine special issue I have is #20, which indeed corroborates what Sullivan says about the fourth series. Gallifrey Base has a recognised and accountable writing staff and policy, and has been recognised by other sources (inc. SFX, BBC, io9) as a good source of information. Both have been accepted as RSes during FACs in 2008 and 2010, and I checked the reliability of the Doctor Who News Page back in 2009, with the answer of "if there's no change to the standard, then it's fine". I'll look for sources to replace Sullivan just in case.
    • I've tried to link on, and only on, the first instance. There's only one link for each entry in the references.
    • Locations provided for all DWM citations.
    • Different citation templates. Standardised.
    • Replaced with source easier to access.
    • Done for all DWM, and all magazines. Sceptre (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - Copyscape has revealed an 8% match in the prose with Doctor Who Guide, which claims "THE DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE IS COPYRIGHT © 2011". Often these copyright claims are bogus because the material has been taken from Wikipedia. Could the nominator assure us that this is the case? Graham Colm (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the content dates back to 2009 when I started rewriting the article, and when the status of the News Page was somewhat in flux (and, IIRC, didn't have that feature). The Doctor Who section, in my final userspace draft, has an error in reading Aldridge/Murray which was later fixed by another editor. So: the most simple explanation is someone copying from Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2011&oldid=455047706"