Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor (Doctor Who)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 01:39, 21 January 2008.
Doctor Who was a featured article (once taking me by surprise as I stumbled upon it on the front page) and comparing this and Doctor Who, I think that this is up to par. The information is quite detailed, there are pictures but not too many, and there are no red links. Plus it backs itself up with a mighty long list of references and foot notes. (: - Babylon pride (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: "a mighty long list of references and footnotes"? I count 21 footnotes, 6 references (only one or two of which are used for inline citations), 40+ whole paragraphs, and 5+ entire sections without citations -- not including the skimpy lead. There is also one "citation needed" tag. Therefore, the bulk of the information (as interesting as it is) is not properly sourced. If you can get your hands on the references and are able to add more inline citations to verify the material, then I suggest you start there. I haven't read the article at length, but verifiability is a major issue. María (habla conmigo) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree that the above citation concerns should be addressed. Verification isn't just a cosmetic issue: there are statements like "A common contention among fans and producers of the series", which is vague and weaselly, and "Possibilities include the Doctor estimating his age", which is the kind of fact-free speculation I could come up with myself without having to read an encyclopedia article.
There's a wealth of information in the article that refers back to specific events and episodes, and that's great, but taken together they make more of a list than an article. More out-of-universe information is necessary for balance; see Jack Harkness for a good example. The nitty-gritty details could be split off into child articles like "Age of the Doctor", making the main article more manageable. Melchoir (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose article is excessively long; details should be branched off into subarticles, see WP:SIZE. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.