Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doctor Who missing episodes/archive1
- 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 kept 07:49, 2 May 2007.
Doctor Who missing episodes[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Messages left at User talk:Khaosworks, England and Doctor Who. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this still seems to be a quite well written comprehensive article, it has just 3 inline citations (plus one note) hence violating 1 c).--Konstable 13:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the references are from external book sources, as you can see from the bottom of the page, so the sheer number of inline citations does not matter, as the references are quite clear. Anything else? Smomo 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there aren't enough specific inline citations for all the facts presented in the article's prose. While book citations are nice, they need to be more specific, i.e. what book (and possibly which page number) the sources come from for each fact presented. To cite all the necessary stuff could take a while. While I would like to help, I don't have enough time at the moment. For anyone who takes on this job, I would reccomend the site of the Doctor Who Restoration Team, which contains plenty of information on the restorations and conditions of episodes for citations. Green451 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "References" don't provide page numbers, so to be considered to cover 1c they would have to do so. Harvard referencing or inline citations usually cover 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to provide Harvard-style citations with page numbers in the next week — I've been quite busy in real life lately, but I'll try to make some time for this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have a go at some of this in the next few days too. Angmering 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok cool. I prefer inline citation personally, but up to you whichever you wish to use. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know that I have begun citing this article — I've only started the job, and there's still a lot more needs doing, but I thought I'd reassure you that work is being done on it. Angmering 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My invisible hat tips off to you :) LuciferMorgan 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has 82 footnotes tied to 40 separate references. I don't know if this satisfies the review yet, but I have dropped User:Konstable a line on his talk page asking if his concerns are being satisfied, and I await a reply. Angmering 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said your books etc. are 160 miles away at present? Well, if you make a pledge to add specific page numbers when they're at hand I'd be very happy. Criterion 1. c. has definitely been met anyway, and congratulations to you. LuciferMorgan 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For two of the magazines and one book I was working from web versions, yes, but I cited the print versions because they look much better as cites. Still the same text content, though. I can certainly add the specific page numbers next time I'm back in Sussex, probably next month sometime, although I have asked on the project talk page if anybody else can supply them sooner. Angmering 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds cool. LuciferMorgan 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For two of the magazines and one book I was working from web versions, yes, but I cited the print versions because they look much better as cites. Still the same text content, though. I can certainly add the specific page numbers next time I'm back in Sussex, probably next month sometime, although I have asked on the project talk page if anybody else can supply them sooner. Angmering 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, sorry I have been off-wiki for a while due to real life. I think the citation is working quite well now. I don't have any further concerns with it.--Konstable 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c).
Comment: People seemed happy, but I thought I'd move it to get official comments on status as it's been up a while. Marskell 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criterion 1. c. has been addressed. LuciferMorgan 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the citation criteria has been fulfilled. Nice job. Bob talk 10:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.