Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turn Left (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 by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009 [1].
Another Doctor Who series 4 article up for featured status. It's not as long as my Silmaril, The Stolen Earth, but at 33KB, I believe it is long enough for a 45 minute episode to be promoted to FA. I think I've sorted out all of the FA criteria, but I would accept suggestions for prose. Sceptre (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - I added the copyright holder to the FUR. The sole image in the article now meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It's like I have my own TARDIS! I fixed it an hour before you said that ;) Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Realized that the tool is lagging over a few days. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the internment camp scene in the episode, as opposed to the main plot of the bug on Donna's back and Rose's return and warnings. Certainly it's an important scene, but not at the expense of the overall plot. Perhaps it'd be better to frame it within the overall dystopian atmosphere of the episode? It might also make more sense for the infobox image to be something relating to the episode's main plot, such as a shot of Donna in the UNIT time machine with the bug on her back, or of the stretcher with the Doctor's hand clutching the sonic screwdriver. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From a standpoint of WP:NFC, it's hard to justify a different image since both can be explained with words easily - a bug on someone's back, or the sonic screwdriver in the hands of the covered Doctor's corpse - and otherwise have no commentary outside of the episode itself to use. (Ok, maybe the bug in relationship to the previous DW episode that used the model, but again, it's still easily described by text). On the other hand, the image that Spectre's used here is one that was part of a powerfully emotional scene as stated by external sources. It may not be the most representative scenes, but it is much easier to assume this is a good rationale for the use of NFC than either of the other two examples. --MASEM 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Production-wise, it was an important scene; it was supposed to show to the audience really how fucked up the alternate world was. And the reviews I was able to find (mid-season reviews tend to be a bit more difficult, in my experience, to look for, and four or five are enough) all picked up on how powerful the scene was. And while it isn't really an important scene plot-wise, the plot is only one third of an episode article :) Sceptre (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: it's kind of a fallacy that non-free images have to come from the plot. It helps, but just taking it solely from the plot stymies most chances of creating a decent rationale for use; c.f. The Stolen Earth and The Unicorn and the Wasp. Sceptre (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Production-wise, it was an important scene; it was supposed to show to the audience really how fucked up the alternate world was. And the reviews I was able to find (mid-season reviews tend to be a bit more difficult, in my experience, to look for, and four or five are enough) all picked up on how powerful the scene was. And while it isn't really an important scene plot-wise, the plot is only one third of an episode article :) Sceptre (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From a standpoint of WP:NFC, it's hard to justify a different image since both can be explained with words easily - a bug on someone's back, or the sonic screwdriver in the hands of the covered Doctor's corpse - and otherwise have no commentary outside of the episode itself to use. (Ok, maybe the bug in relationship to the previous DW episode that used the model, but again, it's still easily described by text). On the other hand, the image that Spectre's used here is one that was part of a powerfully emotional scene as stated by external sources. It may not be the most representative scenes, but it is much easier to assume this is a good rationale for the use of NFC than either of the other two examples. --MASEM 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear on the use of WP:ITALICS in the "Writing" section? Please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the WP:DASHes in the citations. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent, some retrieved on, others Retrieved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The italics are kind of a loan from my Wikiquote editing; they're supposed to indicate stage directions. Done the dashes issue in the citations. Sceptre (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article needs to be thoroughly copyedited and the "Broadcast and reception" section needs to be reorganized.
- The prose is, in general, too wordy (see the "Filming" section in particular) and there are numerous grammar errors throughout the article. A good copyeditor could fix these problems in two hours or so.
- The larger problem is the structure of the "Broadcast and reception" section. The "Analysis" section is sourced entirely to Walker. Information should be drawn from the reviews for the analysis in addition to Walker, particularly since they mention some of the same themes and symbolic allusions. As it stands, the article repeats itself in the "Critical reception" section - there are ideas there that should be in the "Analysis" section. You need to select the elements of the reviews that are analytical and place those in the "Analysis" section and those elements that are evaluative and place those in the "Critical reception" section.
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.