Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Doctor Who (series 4)/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:01, 11 September 2008 [1].

Doctor Who (series 4)

After two false starts to the FLC, I am now confident enough that it passes the featured list criteria. I am deciding to submit as a list as I feel it is more of a list than an article; it is more evocative of Lost (season 4) (an influence) than Smallville (season 1). Although the Christmas special has not yet been named, I do not think this should cause opposition: I employ a two-out-of-three rule when creating episode pages and episode sections on lists: if a television episode has two sourced aspects of: a title, an airdate, and a plot summary; I will include it. Removal would compromise the comprehensiveness of the article. See List of Desperate Housewives episodes#Season 5: 2008–2009 for a comparison with a featured list. The list itself needs no changes beyond small improvement, apart from updating the title when announced and including the AI and viewing figures when release. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following sources reliable?
- ~~http://www.fearnet.com/Default.aspx~~
~~Current ref 19 (New series trailer) is lacking a last access date.~~

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Replaced with a statement about a trailer being premiered at Comic-Con. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Don't know whether it's worth withdrawing this for the time being. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre asked if I would be willing to address any concerns, so we can keep it open for the time being. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep the nomination live as long as comments are addressed in a timely fashion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also help address concerns. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No bold links in the lead please.
- Lead is too short, just one small para?
- Don't link all the dates just for the sake of it - think - does linking this date enrich the reader's experience? (as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd?)
- Should "Special" (in lead, as in Christmas Special) be capitalised? Same with the next series part of the infobox.
- Image caption in infobox is a fragment so no full stop required.
- Production section, two consecutive sentences starting with "This..." reads awkwardly.
- Expand RSC before using it so non-experts stand a chance...
- "The 15 episodes comprised of 13 regular " - perhaps it's me but I always thought it should be "consisted of 13" or "comprised 13"...
- "Doctor Who Magazine gradually revealed writers for the series..." - under what jurisdiction? Was it official or just speculative?
- Infobox leaks over the right-hand side of the table (on my browser - Safari under Mac OS 10.5.4...)
Sorry, I've been interrupted so I'll have to stop here for the moment. More to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - As to the bold links... MOS states that the text of the title should be bolded in the lead, and that the first instance of a subject (Doctor Who) should be linked, which happens to be part of the title.
    - No, don't have bold links, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, see WP:LEAD which says "Do not link words in the bold title." The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Link moved. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As this is a list, leads tend to be short.
    - No, please re-read WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's not much to add without falling into repetition; lists are hard to summarise. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're quite easy. This will fail criterion 2 as it does not have an engaging lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Date links can be removed, as long as all dates are in British format.
    - Up to you to format them however, but don't link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding auto-formatting. Currently, it should not fail FL; List of Doctor Who serials is also a FL, with all dates linked. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Justify why you need to link all the dates then. There's absolutely no need. And just because historic lists passed with this overlinking, it does not mean the current standards are so low. Once more, as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        They do not need to be linked; but they also do not need to be unlinked. They are linked for the sole purpose of auto-formatting, which is still an acceptable practice (but that may change). Therefor inactionable. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Per the manual of style, as I view it today: "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." Actionable once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Special" capitalisation Fixed.
  - Full-stop Fixed.
  - Double "This" Fixed
  - RSC Fixed
  - Comprised > consisted Fixed
  - Doctor Who Magazine is quite authorative on the subject; they publish official announcements.
    - Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just click it and read "Officially sanctioned by the BBC..." — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Expand that in this lead then to say "Officially sanctioned by the BBC, Doctor Who Magazine...."
        That falls outside the scope of this article, hence the link to Doctor Who Magazine. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it falls within the scope to ensure readers are aware that it's an official source, not just a fanzine. Readers should not have to click away from this list to discover that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The statement is cited to Doctor Who Magazine, which is also linked. The statement is hence verifiable. DWM has already built a reputation as a reliable source; we do not need to re-assert that. It is up to the reader to do so if they so desire. Accrediting sources falls outside the scope of any subject. Our job is only to provide them. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That should not happen... but my screen isn't big enough to test it.
    - Still needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can't fix what ain't broken. The page uses standard tables. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid it needs to be fixed regardless of your specific browsing experience. If a portion of the table is inaccessible to me then the list cannot be promoted under any circumstances. In any case, it appears to have been fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ehm, no... If standards code breaks a browser, it is time to change browsers. It appears fixed now because I added a rather nasty hack that should normally never be used, because it breaks layout for other browsers. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Very good but ideally it should be fixed for the majority of browsers, in particular IE6, IE7, Firefox and Safari. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Another "Christmas Special" in the infobox.
- No. of episodes in the infobox is 15 + 2 supplemental, so 17 total. The lead does not back this up.
- No source information for the fair use image.
- "(Blocks 2, 5 and 7)" - why is Block a proper noun?
- Is series capitalised or not? Be consistent.
- Order citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to.
- Episode(s) and Writer(s) should be used as col headings because a lot of the rows have only one entry.
- premièred is now an English word without the accent grave. It's used again in the last story synopsis.
- "announced that in a partnership with Carlton Screen Advertising a " commas missing after "that" and "Advertising".
- "on TV" - television and, presumably, "British television"?
- Avoid overlinking the episode names.
- Merge first two paras of "Guest stars" - single sentence paras should be avoided.
- "Doctor Who's format of stand-alone episodes allows a greater flexibility in story telling. " says who? is this your opinion?
- "Like the previous three series" then "Unlike the previous three series" - reads awkwardly to me.
- What is PC in the table? You just called it Code in the previous table.
- Why is Doctor relinked in story 194's synopsis?
- " CAL (Eve Newton) - a computer-linked child "- why not just a comma here instead of a hyphen?
- Chino links to a disambiguation page.
- " works with Doctor" - the Doctor?
- " It will feature a new mutant Cyberman called Cybershade[44] on Earth in Victorian England[45][46][47][48] " - missing punctuation and do you need to link England? And do you really need four citations for this?
- Doctor Who Prom is linked twice in quick succession. Avoid.
- " the former in Block 4; the latter in Block 10." - this information is already in the first table. And why is Block proper noun once again?
- Why didn't the other supplemental episode have a production code?
- Why all the bold in the references?
- ref 49 needs fixing.
- Check all references use en-dash, not hyphen for page, date ranges etc. (e.g. ref 20, ref 50 etc).
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I fixed most of the above issues, minus some points; the bold refs are caused by the {{cite journal}} template, so cannot be fixed; Hyphens are acceptable practice; and there is no production code for "Music of the Spheres" because none has been published. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Should indicate it's a television series in the opening sentence, not just a series
"a regular series of thirteen episodes ~~was~~ aired"
Could it say which channel the series aired on?
Can we attempt to counter the Systemic bias, and provide a worldwide view, by stating which networks the series appeared on in other countries, especially those such as US, Canada, Aus and NZ?
"Doctor Who ~~had been~~ was recommissioned"
"The tenth production block — consisting of the 2008 Christmas special and the BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres" — completed recording on 3 May." Per WP:DASH, em-dashes shouldn't be spaced, but spaced en-dashes can be used instead.
The table for the production block could be removed, with an extra "Block" column added to the main episode table. What's the point in repeating five columns' worth of information?
Some dates are linked, while others aren't.
The casting section is a distracting sea of blue links. Consider unlinking the episode titles, since they're linked in the episode table anyway
Expand "Code" to "Production code" in the episode table
Unlink character names in the episode summaries, and remove actors names, as it's all repetition of the Cast section
{{citation}} is being used in conjunction with {{cite web}}, cite video and cite news. WP:CITET says only one version ({{citation}} or {{cite xxx'}}) should be used because of the different markup.
I'm not a wiz with image use, but the DVD image seems to fail WP:NFCC, since it doesn't illustrate what it says it does (ie, a DVD cover, but no mention of the DVD in the article). But as I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on images and fair-use stuff.

That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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