Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive4

Add links
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 promoted by Ucucha 23:30, 2 February 2012 [1].

Russell T Davies

[edit]

Russell T Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A third FAC in as many months for this article, after the previous two closed with minimal feedback. I've been working on this article for the past year or so and I believe that it's of a good enough quality to gain that all-elusive golden star. Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bod's comments
    • Section: Children's Television Career, para 3. Without going into detail it would be good to mention why BBC Manchester was 'not allowed' to do drama. If it's a BBC Guideline just add "due to BBC guidelines" or something similarly brief. Otherwise it looks a bit mysterious.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 2. Article says "He let his contract with Granada expire and pitched a new early-evening soap opera to Channel 4, RU, created by Bill Moffat, father of Press Gang co-creator Steven Moffat, and co-written by him and Paul Cornell." It leaves me wondering why Bill Moffat didn't pitch it since he created it? And when it says "co-written by him" is the 'him' Bill Moffat, Steven Moffat or R T Davies? I assume it's Davies but I think the sentence needs to be re-written for clarity.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 5. Article says he almost died from an overdose. The context suggests it was a suicide attempt but the reader is left wondering. Is it known? If so, it should be made plain rather than vague. As it stands it is even open to conjecture that someone poisoned him since it doesn't say he administered the overdose.
    • Section: Queer As Folk, para 2 (excluding quote): article says "The eight forty-minute episodes emulated experiences from his social life and includes an episode where the minor character Phil Delaney (Jason Merrells) succumbs to his excesses and dies unnoticed by his social circle." I feel 'succumbs to his excesses' is vague. Given the context and what the article has informed us of thus far, I assume it's a drug overdose. But some people might wonder if "sexual excesses" are being referred to here. On the other hand, perhaps it's drink? We have no way of knowing for sure. So I'd be glad if it were just spelled out for us. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order:
      • It seems to be an internal thing, looking at Aldridge/Murray.
      • Moffat, Cornell, and Davies pitched it together with Press Gang producer Sandra Hastie.
      • As far as I can tell, it was accidental (he was with a friend, probably drank too much, and had to be hospitalised, with the existential crisis coming after. The drug isn't mentioned in Aldridge/Murray.
      • In the show, it's cocaine. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these points have been clarified. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure the quotes that begin some of the subsections really add anything to the article. The ones from Queer as Folk and Doctor Who in particular are very long, and just consist of a random line of dialogue from the series which doesn't really tell us anything the article doesn't (namely, that the show has a frank approach to sexuality and that the main character is quite alien respectively). I couldn't find anything about this in the previous FACs or peer reviews, but if this has come up before then fair enough (As a sidenote, they're all referenced except for The Second Coming one, which is inconsistent). One other point: the image of the protest from Bob and Rose doesn't really resemble the real-life photo at all - certainly not enough to warrant a side-by-side comparison (which also makes the fair use rationale a bit dodgy). Would it be possible to get a clearer screen grab, with something more than a tangle of people and a tiny slice of a bus? Smurrayinchester 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beyond my earlier comments, the article looks great. Smurrayinchester 13:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I'm somewhat concerned how heavily RTD's life story rests on the Aldridge & Murray source. I'm not saying the article shouldn't do that, I merely pose the question. Is this acceptable? Do we have any guidelines on this matter? I asked the Foundation mailing list about it and didn't get many replies but one person said that one thing to ask is "would the article put someone off buying the original book?" It's impossible for me to really answer that without myself buying the book and making a judgement having read it. What do others think? By the way, I realise this will cause misery for the person(s) who has/have gone to great trouble to create/improve the article (and I think the article is excellent) so I'm genuinely sorry for that. But it's a valid concern, I think and I would really need this question to be considered before I can offer my support for promotion. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Bod's review of article versus featured article criteria
    • Criteria 1a: well written (its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard)
      • Excellent - I found it to be so. I do have some interest in this subject so I'd find it more interesting than someone stumbling on it by accident but the article drew me in and I wasn't at any point cursing it for length or bored. I didn't notice any clangers in sentence construction or anything like that.
    • Criteria 1b: comprehensive (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context)
      • Excellent - I know a bit about RTD and didn't notice anything missing. It covers his non-Doctor Who work in detail, which is good to see.
    • Criteria 1c well-researched (it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate)
      • Comment - This brings us back to the Aldridge & Murray question as outlined above this review: ie, can one source ever be said to be a 'representative survey'?
    • Criteria 1d: neutral (it presents views fairly and without bias)
      • Good - It doesn't give us any criticisms of RTD's work, focusing on praise alone. I wouldn't block promotion on that score, though. Article provides criticism of the work as well as praise.
    • Criteria 1e: stable (it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process)
      • Excellent - Looks like Sceptre has been looking after the article for the last few months. No sign of any combat (I looked back as far as August).
    • Criteria 2: It follows the style guidelines
      • I think so: I'm not a Manual of Style expert but I'm happy with it.
    • Criteria 2a: a lead (a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections)
      • Excellent - covers all the ground briefly.
    • Criteria 2b: appropriate structure (a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents)
      • Excellent - his different shows make up most of the contents links, which seems a good way to let people navigate if they don't want to read the whole article.
    • Criteria 2c: consistent citations.
      • I think so - but I'm not really brilliant on our referencing styles. But I can say that all information is referenced.
    • Criteria 3: Media (It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
      • Someone else usually vets all FACs for image rights - but I'm happy with the images as illustrations of the subject.
    • Criteria 4: Length. (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • Excellent - I didn't notice any points where it went into too much detail but nor did I feel short-changed. Seemed very well-rounded to me.
    • '''OVERALL JUDGEMENT''' : I'm happy to support as a FA provided there is consensus amongst other reviewers that Aldridge & Murray being so extensively used is not in breach of any guidelines we have or a problem for FA status. I've read Sceptre's comments on Aldridge & Murray below but I would like to see more input on it from others. -- bodnotbod (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE TO SELF: In the mess of unnecessary bolding above, a support is buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aldridge/Murray itself uses a lot of sources dating all the way back to 1987, and the sources do become more frequent post-Queer as Folk. I could, in theory, use those sources instead of the book, but I'd still be using the book anyway as it's more detailed than those sources. It's the problem with fame coming gradually to most people: I dare say that, without the book, Revelations, for example, would've faded into obscurity. I would say that it (or any decent biography) would be considered a representative survey of the available sources, as it both uses most sources available between '87 and '08, and is one of the only sources I've found to cover his career in between Century Falls and Queer as Folk. I don't think it would put people off buying the book, though; there's a lot of detail in the book I considered incidental to a Wikipedia biography.
    • Re: criticism: I feel that the article does mention criticism where it's balanced: e.g. the Queer as Folk section mentions the backlash from a lot of people due to how it handled its subject matter (although, really, what did they expect from a Channel 4 show?). However, among actual critics and the general public, Davies has always been mediocre at worst; even "Love & Monsters", as the article points out, was only marginally worse-than-average, even though I personally think it's a terrible episode. There is the infamous "gay agenda" criticism, but it's never been levied by reliable sources, and both you and I know it's just homophobic ranting. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment: The subtitle "Sources" should be renamed to "Bibliography" and that of {{Reflist}} should be "Footnotes". And footnotes must come BEFORE the bibliography. Good article overall. --Z 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for Classics is misleading. My understanding is that the subject is the study of Ancient Greek and/or Latin and the associate cultures, whereas what you link to is basically Eng Lit.

I'd like to see an image review and a source spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods
  • File:Bob_and_Rose_Section_28_protest.jpg: who holds copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi: could you tell me which captions in particular should be edited? I could only think of the infobox caption.
    • I believe the copyright would be held by ITV, as the airing channel. I've edited the image's description to specify the producer and publisher. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments weighty tome, good work. A few technical comments:

  • Is there a reason why "notable awards" are in bold in the infobox?
  • "resulted in a " clarify it was his mother that had that issue, not him.
  • "English Literature" -> "English literature".
  • "an Oxbridge university" well that's either Oxford or Cambridge, so why not just say that?
  • We call "Why Don't You...?" just "Why Don't You?". Is there a reason for your use of the ellipsis?
  • "Why Don't You...?.[7]" double full stop warning.
  • Do you really mean to link Bill Moffat?
  • Anthony Cotton has no h in his Antony.
  • You've linked McGuffin then Easter-egg linked it in the next section, I wouldn't do that.
  • Zeta Jones is hyphenated.
  • "Bank Holiday" is just "bank holiday".
  • You link "dénouement" the second time you use it, not the first.
  • Tables don't meet MOS:DTT for accessibility.
  • Some refs end in a full stop, others don't, is there a reason for that?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: spotcheck of sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of all online sources (50/182)

  1. 103) Article: "Ian Berriman of science fiction magazine SFX gave the book five stars and wrote that it was the only book necessary to gain a knowledge of the show's production and secrets."
    Source: "You can douse all the other books about new Who in lighter fuel and spark up your Zippo – this is all you need. It’s the only one that opens a door into the brain of the series’ showrunner." Not in the source.
  2. 130) Article: "His most prolific cliffhanger was in the script of "The Stolen Earth", which created an unprecedented amount of interest in the show."
    Source: "More than 10million viewers are expected for tonight's finale of the latest Dr Who series amid anguished debate over whether David Tennant's Time Lord will be killed off." Does not say unprecedented in this source, would constitute OR.
  3. 135) Article: "The world without the Doctor creates a dystopia which he uses to provide a commentary on Nazi-esque fascism."
    This sentence is cited twice, thus this may not be a problem, but the internet link is to a script of the show; if the other reference does not explicitly state that it is a commentary on fascism, it could constitute OR.
  4. 136) Article: "Davies generally tries to make his scripts "detailed, but quite succinct", and eschews the practice of long character and set descriptions; instead, he limits himself to only three adjectives to describe a character and two lines to describe a set to allow the dialogue to describe the story instead."
    Source: "Really quite detailed, but very succinct." Also, I think "the practice" is unnecessary and not really talked about, more talk about what he does.
  5. 139) Article: "Torchwood also tackles LGBT themes by subverting stereotypes and exploring the characters' sexualities"
    Source says nothing about stereotypes; closest it gets is "I want to knock down the barriers so we can't define which of the characters is gay."
  6. 142, 145, 147, 149, 153, 154 (all are links to BAFTA site) dead links

Recommend further source review of printed materials --ClayClayClay 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey:
      • Changed.
      • Changed.
      • The line "That's what they called him last time" is a direct reference to the Holocaust (although that can be inferred without RSes—Rusty was never that good with allegory—the magazine does support the assertion).
      • Changed.
    • I'm going to have a closer look at the source to see exactly what he says; I believe there's some words in the interview to the effect that h*e wanted to prevent people from thinking "oh, this character is gay and he'll only sleep with men", to which I can't see any other interpretation other than he wanted to subvert stereotypes.
      • I'll fix that momentarily.
    • I'll pop back in an hour or so, which should give me time to do the rest. Sceptre (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through my previous comments - all have been taken care of. I especially liked what you did with the AfterElton reference and expanding its coverage a bit. One question now, unrelated to spotchecking: did you mean to remove the Recognition section header? ClayClayClay 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to do that; I think it's something to do with a JS tool... fixed, in any case. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russell_T_Davies/archive4&oldid=1138470407"