Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who missing episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Doctor Who missing episodes

Project nomination. This originally started as a section in the main Doctor Who article and expanded slowly over the months, with a companion article, List of incomplete Doctor Who serials, providing a bit more information. I took the discussion bits from the latter and merged it with the former to create this article, and it rapidly expanded from there, mostly thanks to Angmering (talk • contribs), with myself chiming in every now and then for the copyediting chores. It was then sent for peer review, with only one real comment and I believe the issues have been addressed. It would be nice to have a Doctor Who FA that was completely non-fancruft in nature, so I am therefore submitting it for consideration. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not bad at all. However, one annoying aspect was the sporadic, inconsistent linking of low-value years and decades. I've removed these so that your readers will be more likely to follow up high-value links. It's easier to read and edit now, and looks better on the page. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. 'Compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Prose needs a run-through to bring it up to FA standard ('compelling, even brilliant')—shouldn't be too hard a job, though. Tony 05:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've had a tinker, and the only real problem seems to be little bits of grammar here and there, which is trivial unless the article is consistently in pidgin (compare for example Battle of the Bulge, which has been a featured article for some time and is much worse in this respect). Otherwise it is comprehensive, well-written, entertaining, and just the kind of thing I like to read during my lunch break. Also, it gives the impression that the writers are aware of the world outside Doctor Who, and doesn't give off the whiff of autism that emanates from so many other fannish articles. I imagine it will fail the nomination because of the pictures, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the images should pose a lot of problems. While the number of images used may be up for debate, it's clear there's no free alternatives to illustrate this article with, so claiming fair use on some images is in this case perfectly allowable - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As noted above, the prose needs a strong copyedit to bring it up to standards. More importantly, though, this isn't really an article about the missing episodes themselves, as the title suggests, but an article about the loss and recovery of the episodes. It's historical rather than simply descriptive; and, aside from a better title, it needs a few gaps in its framework plugged -- most conspicuously, a summary of the missing material when the recovery process began in earnest and a comparable summary of the current state of the "inventory." A small amount of work is required for a substantial improvement in the article. Also, the timetable for audio releases mentioned here (finishing in 2005) doesn't match the schedule in the linked article (finishing in 2006). Monicasdude 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a listing of the episodes missing at the time of the 1978 audit which have subsequently been recovered, with a link to the existing List of incomplete Doctor Who serials which lists the still missing material, and is probably too long to go in the parent article on its own. I hope that satisfies that point. As for the prose, I can't really comment on that as I wrote a substantial chunk of it, and it's always harder to edit your own stuff as I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians can relate to! So I'll leave tidying up my writing to others. Angmering 22:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as nobody else had I've now gone through and tried to tidy the prose here and there where it seems appropriate. Let me know what you think. Please do point out specific examples of what you think needs changing if it still doesn't come up to your standards. Angmering 11:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just corrected the last point (about the schedule), and updated some of the other information in the "Orphans" section of the article, to match information in the previous section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looking good OmegaWikipedia 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very Weak Object. The article is very well done, and worthy of Featured Article-ness, but it's still not the best it can be. A little more work, and my vote will be a support, just do what those above me said. --Quadraxis 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the only things left to do to make this article FA worthy would be to go through it for spelling and grammar mistakes, and perhaps to consider changing the title (but the title change isn't that important). Keep up the good work! --Quadraxis 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Since I only tossed "two cents" in, I hope that qualifies me to cast an objective vote. :) I would say Support - I think the prose and flow of the article has come along nicely, and I think the other objections have been handled, and handled quickly! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, seems reasonable now. Could maybe use a different title but I'm not going to object over that. JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. An interesting piece of UK TV history. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)