Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive2

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 Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [1].

---

Russell T Davies

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

• Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive4

Nominator(s): Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes, particularly as regards MOS:ELLIPSIS
• Per WP:LAYOUT we're advised against using the subheading Bibliography in a bio, as the term can also mean books authored by the subject, and while some of the sources used fit that criterion one does not
• Be consistent in the use of p for single and pp for multiple pages
• Newspapers and other publications should be italicized
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• Be consistent in whether locations are provided, and if they are what information is included
• Newspaper/magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
• FN 149 vs 153, 163 vs 166: why the different formatting here?
• FN 161: page(s)?
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines
  • Done.
  • Changed to "Sources".
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • See, I anticipated this. A Brief History of Time Travel cites its own sources, normally to the Doctor Who Magazine's special issues. I have no doubts as to the authenticity of information, but the only Doctor Who Magazine special issue I have is #20, which indeed corroborates what Sullivan says about the fourth series. Gallifrey Base has a recognised and accountable writing staff and policy, and has been recognised by other sources (inc. SFX, BBC, io9) as a good source of information. Both have been accepted as RSes during FACs in 2008 and 2010, and I checked the reliability of the Doctor Who News Page back in 2009, with the answer of "if there's no change to the standard, then it's fine". I'll look for sources to replace Sullivan just in case.
    • Replaced all instances of Sullivan with sources where there is a greater argument for reliability. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried to link on, and only on, the first instance. There's only one link for each entry in the references.
  • Locations provided for all DWM citations.
  • Different citation templates. Standardised.
  • Replaced with source easier to access.
  • Done for all DWM, and all magazines. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - Copyscape has revealed an 8% match in the prose with Doctor Who Guide, which claims "THE DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE IS COPYRIGHT © 2011". Often these copyright claims are bogus because the material has been taken from Wikipedia. Could the nominator assure us that this is the case? Graham Colm (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the content dates back to 2009 when I started rewriting the article, and when the status of the News Page was somewhat in flux (and, IIRC, didn't have that feature). The Doctor Who section, in my final userspace draft, has an error in reading Aldridge/Murray which was later fixed by another editor. So: the most simple explanation is someone copying from Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.