Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doctor Who/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cardiff, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales, User talk:Khaosworks, User talk:Rodhullandemu, User talk:Josiah Rowe, User talk:Angmering, User talk:Ckatz, User talk:Alientraveller.
FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues throughout, need to be addressed. Article utilizes 10 images and 1 media file, this could use review for appropriate fair-use rationale check (and to check for possible overusage of claimed fair-use images) and individual image review check of the other images and media. Not sure there is a satisfactory amount of material in the article on Critical reception and commentary, as opposed to a recanting of in-universe material and plot summary of various characters and internal show-history. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On images, File:Doctor Who colorful diamond logo.png, File:10thplanet.jpg, File:Anim doczoe.jpg, File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg, File:Curseoffataldeath.jpg, and File:Simpsons Doctor Who.jpg should in my opinion be tossed out, as current content doesn't support their inclusion as significantly increasing reader understanding (mostly it's just illustrated mentions.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stripped out all the above images, and downsized the infobox image (File:Doctorwhotitles2007.jpg) to comply with WP:NFCC. The rationales are decent enough, so I think that takes care of image criterion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, 1c criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:01, 19 June 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.