Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive3

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 15:21, 6 November 2011 [1].

Russell T Davies

Nominator(s): Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating this article because FAC #2 didn't have any feedback other than a source and Copyspace check (both questions answered in that FAC). The nomination statement from the previous is below: Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 16 October 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.

Procedural query - it hasn't been two weeks yet since your previous nomination closed; do you have leave from a delegate to renom early? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I didn't, I was running off my own internal clock that said "I've been editing other articles for at least a week". I'll flag a delegate now about it. I'd assume it'd be fine, given that it received only minimal feedback last time around, but I'll flag a delegate now. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has already been transcluded and I didn't see the initial query until today, I'll let it slide this time. Waivers are usually given to allow a nominator to bring a different article, not the same one. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on sources:

There are a number of citation needed tags which need addressing.

ref #17[2] This doesn't actually say that "the archaeologist Miss Pendragon (Jacqueline Pearce)" is the character referred to.

ref #91[3] supports the quote.

ref #137[4] does not support the statement "Torchwood also tackles LGBT themes by exploring the characters' sexuality and subverting stereotypes and the expectation of heterosexuality in contemporary Cardiff," It does mention the character's bisexuality, but doesn't really support the statement.

ref #134[5] supports the statement.

ref #159[6] supports the statement.

ref #162[7] What makes this a reliable source? Or #164[8] Looks like fan site to me.

ref #178[9] supports the statement.

I could not assess the off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That reference to the Guardian has been removed for the time being; I do have a reference that does support the statement, but the reliability of academic journals is not something I'm sure about.

Generally speaking, academic journals are considered to be RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is supported on the second page of the story, in this quote:

"Without making it political or dull, this is going to be a very bisexual programme. I want to knock down the barriers so we can't define which of the characters is gay. We need to start mixing things up, rather than thinking, 'This is a gay character and he'll only ever go off with men.'"

.

Added a page parameter.

I am still not seeing "and the expectation of heterosexuality in contemporary Cardiff," Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to remove that; it's now talking about how it subverts and explores sexual stereotypes in general. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #162 and #164 are citations to the Doctor Who news page, which has been in use in articles that were up at FAC before (Doomsday (Doctor Who), The Stolen Earth), and I checked at RS/N that it was still a RS when it moved. Having used it in several successful FACs, and seen no change in either WP:V's content or the site's content that would make it unreliable, I am confident it still counts as a reliable source. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses should usually not be bracketed, per WP:MOS
Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized
Check wikilinking in footnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, and done. I've wikilinked on the first mention in the references only, which I believe is acceptable practice. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:59, 18 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.