Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who/archive1


 * 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:GrahamColm 14:24, 9 February 2013‎.

Doctor Who

 * Nominator(s): Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a featured article and would like to see it a featured article for Doctor Who's 50 Anniversary Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Far too many uncited paragraphs, and several "citation needed" tags. Sasata (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment This article was demoted in 2009 because of the standard of referencing (Featured_article_review/Doctor_Who/archive1), and also because of the in-universe plot summary in lieu of a lack of critical history and commentary. In the five minutes I have before I go to work, I would point out that we have refimprove section on Spoofs and cultural references, (this section includes an inline external link) and several sections are lacking inline reference, for example Viewership: International, the first half of Companions, Spin-offs, International and Theme music. In passing I note that reference 89 is dated 2008 and provides a citation for a statement that begins "As of 1 January 2013"; I have not time to confirm referencing for the list that follows. Checklinks reported twelve dead links. The quality of the sources needs looking into, as mentioned at the FAR. Just glancing at the prose, there appears to several single sentence paragraphs. I would ask the nom how they are going address these issues in a timely manner? Normally these are addressed before nomination. I think some work is needed to address these issues (possibly using the books mentioned in Further Reading and on the talk page), and a Peer Review sought. Edgepedia (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal - an admirable goal, but one that is this point not close to being achieved. Lots of uncited material, WP:MOS inconsistencies, maintenance tags, poor or inconsistent citations...plenty of work yet to be done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.