Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astrid Peth/archive1

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 01:53, 14 February 2008.

---

Astrid Peth

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it is well-written citing many reputable outide references and accurately describing the character and her impact on Doctor Who. I think having this companion article receive featured article status would encourage editors to improve the many other companion article that lack citations in much the same way that the episode "Doomsday" achieving featured article status has inspired editors to improve other story articles. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The lead needs expanding so that it adequately summarises the article. Epbr123 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response - I've added two sentences to the lead to summarise the impact the character made on the show as detailed in the article. I think this now means the lead adequately summarises the article. Please check out the revisions. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead's fine now. Epbr123 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article needs a major copy edit. I started to do some editing, but stopped when I couldn't understand what was being said in the first sentence under the section "Conception and behind the scenes." Many long sentences would be clearer if broken into 2 or 3 smaller ones. Kmzundel (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Response - Just because a sentence is long, it does not mean it is unclear. Credit readers with some intelligence. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Further response - My apologies, I just re-read the first sentence of the section you cited and indeed it did not make sense as it was missing the word 'and'. As it was, it was just a string of related points with no structure. I have expanded the introduction to this section into a new first paragraph containing the points as separate sentences with further clarification as to the events they refer to. Once again, my apologies for shooting down your legitimate point and I hope these revisions amend the problem. Please inspect the revisions and see what you think. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I hope you understand that breaking long sentences into smaller ones for the sake of clarity has nothing to do with the readers' intelligence. I'm trying to help bring the article up to FA standards. I've done some copyediting but will read through the article completely again tomorrow when I have a fresh brain. Kmzundel (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I wrote that without properly reviewing the article. It seems continued editing, (for which I am partly responsible), has stretched sentences and errors have been made. Thank you for your work on improving the article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Under "Reception", I suggest starting the second paragraph with "Minogue's portrayal of Astrid received mixed reviews" continuing with both positive and negative comments - not solely the negative which appear currently. I also suggest minimizing the use of direct quotes in this paragraph....especially when they are only one word. Kmzundel (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a; strange and bizarre things, and they're not bug-eyed creatures, either. Here are random examples of why this shouldn't be promoted in its current state. Needs coy-editing thoroughly by someone else.
• "The episode's success" and "the episode's climax" are ungainly; usually, we prefer "the success of the episode" etc, when the noun is inanimate. "before the episode's broadcast"—remove "episode's" (what other broadcast were you thinking of?). There seems to be an addiction to possessive apostrophes; please clean up these expressions. Bloopers such as "... she is alongside the Doctor to discover the plan of Max Capricorn to destroy the Titanic, its passengers and the nearby people of Earth with his villainous angelic robots, the Host. Growing fond of the Doctor, she kisses him as part of what she assures him is an "old tradition" on Sto." Um .... Tony (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Response - Why is the genitive case 'ungainly'? The apostrophe construction saves repeating 'of the' constantly. To my mind, it is a tidier form of writing. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.