Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Harkness/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 17:11, 6 October 2009.

Jack Harkness

 * Nominator(s): ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that after a near-successful nomination two years ago the article has improved by leaps and bounds. Its focus is on real-world information without detriment to its succinctly discussed plot content and draws heavily on sources from news articles, reviews, creator interviews and academic publications. I believe any shortfalls can be addressed rapidly with the added impetus of the FAC nomination.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The whole article seems to be made up of really huge paragraphs. You may want to split many of them up for ease of reading. Reywas92 Talk 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will split up some paragraphs as needed in an edit soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph splitting requires some (largely cosmetic and minor) restructuring, which to do properly I'll need a day or so. You can see how that's going on my sandbox in the meantime and I'll be submitting it in one large edit soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Aaaaand fixed.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Great article, though I agree with what Reywas92 said about the long paragraphs. You'll need WP:ALT text for the images too. Provided that the citations check out, Support. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide those soon.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text provided.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are some redlinks in your citations where you have linked to publishers that don't have articles. They aren't in the main text so don't look ugly, but maybe you should delink them. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 00:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - redlinks are useful, and whether they are in the main text or not they should only be removed if there is no prospect of an article being created.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you specify to what you're referring?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * has addressed this.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - You have 3 dead links per the external links checker. Those will either need to be replaced (though the internet archives) or the information that they source will have to be removed until a replacement can be found.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will identify them and try and find internet archive or newer alternatives soon.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 11:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:WIAFA item 3. File:Captain Jack Torchwood comic.jpg fails WP:NFCC and File:Face of Boe.jpg is a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are those the only concerns, because Zythe can rectify that pretty easily and it would be a shame if your only issues were solved and you didn't change your opinion. P.S. I've added the correct license to the first image, which addresses your 10b concerns.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I was unaware that File:Face of Boe.jpg was copyrighted! I was wrongly confident with my flickr find. Well, I've removed it from the article altogether. Care to look again?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 13:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll always come back for things like this, or poke me if I don't! Now supporting. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Adding another layer to the character is a vague backstory which is gradually revealed as both programmes progress. I understand that the backstory is described in detail later in the article, but the lead should at least mention what kind of a backstory he has.
 * What would you suggest? It seems difficult to really go in and summarise what is a 2,000 year fictional history? I think to say it's vague is pretty much all we as 1) viewers and 2) editors and 3) following sources, can suppose.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I was thinking along the lines of "as a conman and as a hero" <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  ...rapidly gaining fame for portrayer John Barrowman. Is there an article for this man? He seems pretty important.
 * Yes, he's linked in the first sentence of the same lead section.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Jack first appeared in the 2005 Doctor Who episode... I think that this being the first mention of his name in a new section you should write the name in full.
 * Fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <S>Jack is a former "Time Agent" from the 51st century who left after inexplicably losing two years of his memory. Left what? The service? The century? Please specify
 * Specified.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  ...became a con man, and is unwittingly responsible for releasing a plague is -> was
 * Was is in-show backstory (past-tense), is refers to episodic events which are in the fictional present.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh...ok... <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  The character returned in 2006 as the star of the spin-off series Torchwood, where he leads the Cardiff-based Torchwood Three, battling alien threats., Three, battling -> Three in battling. Also, this is just personal preference but unless the battling is open warfare, I would use "combating" instead.
 * Addressed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  The audience also comes to learn Jack was once a prisoner of war,[13] and was an interrogator who used torture. Are we talking about the auidience or his team here?
 * Audience!~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  In "Small Worlds",... Its not clear that this is an episode-better would be "In the episode "Small Worlds",...
 * Fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Jack mourns her loss, now as an old woman. This sentance is confusing.
 * Doesn't seem so to me, but adjusted.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before departing, Jack's speculation about his never-ending aging and reminiscence of his youthful nickname suggests to the audience that he may one day become the mysterious "Face of Boe" You should breifly describe what this Face of Boe is, like "...the mysterious "Face of Boe, a markably old creature of great age."
 * Really? I think (a recurring character voiced by Struan Rodger) summarised the nature of the revelation succinctly.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes really, if one is not familiar with the show they will have to follow the wikilink to find out what exactly the face is (this wouldn't be a problem if there was an image, but from previous discussions it seems that there were copyright problems wih it so ok). <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"> Res  Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a description in the article itself, where said description is relevant. Knowing it's a recurring character revelation is necessary for appearances but the description in "Development" is sufficient enough, I should think! The worry is bloating the Appearances section with trivial/repeated detail.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "The Stolen Earth", Jack is summoned alongside fellow companions Martha and Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) to face the threat of the Daleks' creator Davros (Julian Bleach). What is the Daleks'? Please wikilink or describe.
 * The Daleks were wikilinked above, with the context making them "an enemy". Won't it be kind of laborious to specify an "alien-mutant-cyborg race"? We know it's in space, the future, and they're an enemy species
 *  The next episode sees him part company from the Doctor once again, with Martha and Mickey (Noel Clarke) in tow, having helped save the universe from destruction. How did he save the universe from destruction?
 * By... being there. It's vague because he really doesn't do much himself, to list all the little things just bloat the paragraph senselessly.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  The novel also explained that during the events of the Doctor Who episode "Boom Town" (which was set in Cardiff), Jack placed a lockdown on Torchwood activity so as not to create a paradox. A paradox? Of what kind?
 * Made clearer.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  In a similar vein to The Torchwood Archives but from a real-world perspective, Russell's The Torchwood Encyclopedia (2009) will expand on "every fact and figure" for Jack and the Torchwood world. Is Russel's a publishing company or an author?
 * Author! Doesn't the context make that clear it's referring to the Same Guy Mentioned Just Before? I'll add "Gary" again.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Added.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK :D <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  During the first series of Torchwood, the Torchwood website located at torchwood.org.uk recounted some adventures by Captain Jack through... add a "," after website and before recounted.
 * Fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  In addition to the paperback novels, Jack also appears in Torchwood audio books, the first two being Hidden written by Steven Savile and narrated by Naoko Mori,[67] Everyone Says Hello written by Dan Abnett and narrated by Burn Gorman, released February 2008,[68] and In the Shadows by Joseph Lidster, released September 2008 and narrated by Eve Myles. Isn't it three then?
 * Fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  John Barrowman himself was a key factor in the conception of Captain Jack. Who is John Barrowman? A producer? The actor?
 * Pedantic! I think a well-written article should expect the reader to follow it chronologically and thoroughly to some extent, but I understand your point and made the change.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but one wikilink for an important and not-everybody-known person is not enough, I generally think that they need to be linked a couple of times or so. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  The character's introduction served to posit him as a secondary hero and a rival to the series protagonist, the Doctor... I'm pretty sure posit is a spelling mistake :)
 * Posit
 * 2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest.
 * 3. To place firmly in position.
 * Not sure, do you think I should use a DIFFERENT word?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ? I thought it was a spelling mistake. Didn't realize it was a real word :O. I'de use positiob though but OK. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  The bisexuality-related labels "pansexual" and "omnisexual" are also frequently applied to the character. Is there a link of omnisexual ?
 * No, the link is a redirect to the afore-linked "pansexual".~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Russell T Davies referred to a scene in... Russell T. Davies?
 * Nope, T is his middle name.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? T? ...OK... <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussing Jack's brief romance with his namesake, the real Captain Jack (Matt Rippy), academic critics have noted that "The Captain Jacks both share the same name and are quite similar in physical appearance, thus literalizing the homo-ness of the situation. Academic critics? Isn't it show critics?
 * It's kind of an academic publication rather than a Digital Spy review. ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wierd but OK. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ''" ...Proof of his popularity came with the continued runaway success of his bisexual Captain Jack Harkness on Russell T Davies's Torchwood". Again shouldn't it be T.?
 * Never.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  ...with young children has led to the creation of a Captain Jack action figure. The first figurine depicts... Action figure or figurine?
 * Changed figurine to figure.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See this is your first "serious" review. Whoo that was long. Didn't realize this article was so long whn I started. However once all of the above issues are resolved I am ready to support.

Also, can you do me a favor, and review/vote MY current FAC, Loihi Seamount? Thanks, <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 19:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will and I'll start addressing these. Ones not yet refuted will be fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And, addressed them.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you still have problems with the article / are you ready to support yet? :) ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I still disagree on a couple of issues, but I'm ready to support. Oh and thanks for the Loihi vote, it pushed it into closable :) Cheers, <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * http://www.gallifreyone.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?id=EkpAkZFFkZpKezjobI&tmpl=newsrss&style=feedstyle dealinks
 * This is removed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 71 (Torchwood: Lost Souls...) lacks a publisher
 * This is fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 73 (Torchwood: Download...) lacks a publisher
 * This is fixed.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 12:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/library/zones/2005/nz8000.php deadlinks (also, what makes this a relable source?)
 * Will repair/fix the above.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.afterelton.com/
 * Major news website run by a proper broadcast company (Logo).~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.examiner.com/x-12989-LA-Occult--Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m9d1-The-importance-of-tricksters
 * A real news website?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://freemaagyeman.com/news/2007/06/12/radio-times-poster-trio/
 * The real source for this is Radio Times, the web one was just a handy repetition which can ad will be ommitted.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://io9.com/5318926/ianto-jones-talks-love-explosions-and-dark-secrets
 * io9 is regarded as a reliable source because it is owned by Gawker and employs professional staff. It's passed RS noticeboard, I believe.19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://popculturezoo.com/archives/903
 * Professionals?
 * http://www.endofshow.com/2009/07/12/torchwood-children-of-earth-the-aftermath/
 * Professionals?
 * http://scifipulse.net/?p=1933
 * Kinda professional? The previous source, the RS ScifiWire, went dead and had no archive. This is essentially a sort of reliable source which attributes to that source. I can see the quandry.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.scificollector.co.uk/torchwood-action-figure-news-and-information.htm
 * Company website? Problem solved.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.play.com/Gadgets/Gadgets/4-/5541028/Torchwood-Captain-Jack-Harkness-Figure/Product.html
 * Major distributor using the product description given to them? Problem solved.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 111 (Jensen..) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * AfterElton is reliable, undoubtedly. Will fix.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Longtime fixed, if you weren't aware.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 114 (Anders...( lacks a last access date.
 * io9, will fix.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Longtime fixed, if you weren't aware.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 135 (Torchwood: Captain...) lacks a publisher
 * AE again.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Longtime fixed, if you weren't aware.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=31618 deadlinks. Also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Because it's a major distributor, I should think. I'll see if it's replaceable, regardless.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Problem solved.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How'd you solve it? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By turning a paragraph with a lot of detail about action figures into one line stating they exist, cited to a news article.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the others, to determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. From what I know personally, the cites use reliable sources themselves and aren't simply popular blogs but I'll take a look for some very soon.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lookover. Should I give the RS noticeboard a go on some in particular?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over it, and the RS qualifications, I feel that the websites qualify as reliable for the sources which they provide. For example, the Popculturezoo is a transcription of a Comic-Con interview which they express sufficient qualification to report on. End of Show and Pop Culture Zoo have similar levels of within their sphere credibility. That is to say, they're not Reuters, but they're far above the levels of forums and user blogs.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I'm kinda dubious on them. FA isn't just meeting the bare standards of Wikipedia but trying for the best possible sources, and I'm not sure these meet that standard. However, that's more for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think it's a case of scraping the barrel. I think it's more a case the necessary information being reliably attributed. It's a shame that the SciFiWire link went dead but SciFiPulse is a suitable source in its reproduction of some of that original information. Are there any more links I haven't gotten to?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is a terrific idea for an article, and long over due. Captain Jack is a fascinating character, and his sexual orientation, and the openness of it, creates interesting plot twists and cultural comments. That said, I've read the first 3 paragraphs, and am finding prose problems in nearly every sentence. Could we please fix some of them before plunging further ahead? in the lead:
 * Jack goes on to become the central character in Torchwood, ... Jack becomes....
 * '...hands-on solution to the problem at hand.' ???
 * the character becomes immortal, a lasting change throughout his appearances in both series.
 * The popularity of the character amongst multiple demographics directly influenced the development of the spin-off series Torchwood, in which Jack is the lead amongst an ensemble cast. ... and how can there abe a lead in an ensemble?
 * Jack is a former "Time Agent" Although he poses....Jack is actually...
 * unwittingly responsible for releasing a plague during the Blitz. Or a plague in London...
 * matures into an heroic character? how do we know?  What makes him an heroic character?
 * He is then left behind by the Doctor and Rose, who depart Satellite 5 in the TARDIS. The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series of Doctor Who was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored.[7] Who depart from Satellite 5...next sentence is incredibly awkward.  has nothing to do with the story, but rather the rationale for the story, so doesn't belong here anyway. OR, even better: The doctor and rose leave him behind.
 * The character returned in.... you are in the present tense...returns.
 * a changed man, Jack became immortal after his resurrection and spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor. Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team.  Confusing.  How about...His resurrection by Billie has made him immortal, and immortality has changed him.  He has spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor who, he hopes, can explain his immortality.

This is just the first 4 paragraphs, as I've said. I think part of the problem the depth of detail you're trying to do, rather than stepping way back and simply summarizing the character. Also, once you get past the initial plot and character summaries, it improves dramatically. Much less confusing, repetitive, or awkward. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the lead and the first part, do you want me to put it on the talk page and you can decide whether you like it or not? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the prose does appear awkward then I would like to put that down to attempting to cover broad, detailed content in a sort of general overview. I am satisfied with your edits, although I think saying meeting Estelle "lays the groundwork for future complications" (which of course it does) isn't stated in a secondary source which makes analysis slightly reaching. Apart from that, I personally do not have a problem with your edits at all, and I would be happy for you to submit them to the article to earn your support!~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * go ahead and incorporate what you wish, and then drop me a line, and I'll reread the whole thing for measurement against FA guides. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll do this later (I'm not as prompt as I'd like to be because of my uni work). I'm not going to copy your edit entirely because I find it removes some of what I think is essential detail for the reader (such as clarifying early on that the Doctor is the central character) but I think you make some great simplifications that never occurred to me. Hopefully you'll be happy! I should think (and hope) so.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments It's starting to look better. A "couple" (dozen?) things: *....Jack is killed in an explosion, but reconstitutes from an incomplete pile of body parts in less than a day..... you've made the case that he is immortal, so he cannot be killed. Jack is blown apart in an explosion that destroys Torchwood's Cardiff facility, but reconstitutes himself from a pile of body parts in less than a day. It's much better though. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this sentence doesn't belong in the character appearances section, because it's a production decision--it goes later in your article. "The decision behind Jack's absence in the 2006 series of Doctor Who was so that the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose could be explored. Also, it's poorly written.  Whereever you put it:  Jack's absence from the 2006 series of Doctor Who was a character and story decision; the series creators preferred to explore the effects of the Doctor's regeneration on Rose.  if it must stay where it is, please use.
 * ...."2006 as the star" Jack Harkness isn't the star, he is a central character.
 * ...where... should be in which
 * ...became....sb Jack has become immortal ??
 * ...Jack mourns her loss, now as an old woman. this is reaaallllly awkward.  Jack mourns her lost youth.  (her loss= her loss of her cat, or her handy...)  Or he mourns losing the young woman he knew; she is now very old, and he is still very young.
 * ...to the audience ... actually, the audience may speculate, but his reminiscence suggests to the Doctor and Martha....
 * ...they have moved on without him.... awkward.....they have continued the work without him.
 * ...a young Jack (Jack Montgomery) lost his younger brother Gray (Ethan Brooke) during an alien invasion after releasing his hand .... young Jack (no "a") lost his brother..., after releasing his hand.
 * ... features flashback scenes... more flashbacks
 * ...Gray (Lachlan Nieboer), who, after a lifetime of torture, returns with a vendetta against Jack. After Gray kills T and O, Jack is eventually forced to places Gray in cryogenic stasis, and while somewhat repairing his friendship with Captain John, must also mourns the deaths of teammates Toshiko (Naoko Mori) and Owen (Burn Gorman) at Gray's hand
 * ...Jack is summoned alongside with former companions of the Doctor (someone who doesn't know the story won't understand "fellow companions") Or the Doctor summons Jack and other former companions Martha Jones and Sarah...
 * ...to face the threat of Davros.... To fight Davros and his creation, the Daleks.
 * ....The next episode sees him part company from the Doctor once again, with Martha and Mickey (Noel Clarke) in tow, having helped save the universe from destruction. .... confusing... does Jack have Mickey and Martha in tow? or does the doctor?  He parts company from the Doctor in the next episode, having saved the universe from destruction.  The presence of Mickey  and Martha  is superfluous to Jack's story here.
 * ...The third series of Torchwood (2009) is a five-part serial titled... I still don't like this wording but at least use the word "entitled" .... Even better, Torchwood's third series (2009) is a five-part serial entitled .... Or  In Torchwood (2009): Children of the Earth, or In the five part Children of the Earth, the third Torchwood series (2009)...
 * .....puts a hit on Torchwood to cover a conspiracy. Your 9th grade English teacher would be unhappy.     .... orders a hit on
 * "put a hit" is vernacular English. Common parlance when talking about assassination. It'll change to be more encyclopedic. You wouldn't believe I do English at Oxford. I'm actually very good at it...~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ....The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children, and flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in the original sacrifice of twelve children in 1965....The 456 demand ten percent of the world's children. Flashbacks reveal Jack's involvement in a previous visit, in which he handed 12 children to the aliens, on the secret orders of the government.  This time, however, Jack will not hand over any children.
 * you've lost an important element here, and I'm not sure if I did that in my suggestions, or not. But the conspiracy has to be mentioned.  The enemy is not only the 456, but also the government, which wants to hand over 10% of the world's children, but cannot decide which 10%.  Jack, Gwen and Ianto must fight not only the 456, but also the government.  It is unclear who is the more diabolical enemy.
 * ...In the final part,... in the season finale
 * ...leavea Earth behind
 * ...Doctor Who, which also....


 * Right, I'm going through this on my sandbox right now and and will use this as a handy checklist! I don't think the edits need to be too drastic, actually, as I'm comparing your draft with the current version. I'll announce here when I've done this (hopefully won't be too long) and hopefully you can evaluate whether or not it earns your support! :) ~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! I've updated the mainspace with new prose which addresses your concerns. Thank you so much!~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking and a few other matters
 * Some readers may take offence at the assumption that being gay or bisexual is exotic or relatively obscure. I see in the lead links to "bisexual", "non-heterosexual", "gay". Even grade-school children know what these words mean. It's not "dirty" any more: it's normal.
 * I really think we could drop the idea of linking "fictional character". And "narrative", "demographics", and "ensemble cast" are all plain English words our readers are expected to know, too. If a reader barely speaks English, they can use a dictionary or type the item into the search box. Please direct wikilinking to the valuable targets or they will be swamped.
 * After the lead, the problem is not as evident, and most of the links are valuable. I do see "prisoner of war", which isn't very focused on this topic; and "Christmas Day" (what is THAT?). "Executive producer" and "head writer" seem clear enough—do they need to compete with the guy's name-link, which surely explains those items in better context? "Infatuation" is a normal word.
 * There's a link to "heterosexual"; "pansexual"; even "sexual orientation". One such link in the whole article would do, preferably not in the lead. And maybe "Queerness", although I note there's resistance in the MoS to the linking of items without quotations (not a ban, though). "Sexual identity" and "societal views of homosexuality" right down further might be just enough by themselves. But "Bisexual erasure", piped to "dismissed or overlooked"? LGB will mean nothing to most readers; must they divert to the link target? "Toleration" is a normal English word. "Bisexual stereotyping" linked? I mean, we get it by now, don't we? I rather think the article places too much emphasis on his homosexuality in terms of the space given over to it, e.g., in "Critical reception and impact".
 * Ellipsis dots: please see "Ellipses" concerning the spacing.
 * Link to "human evolution" (piped "evolved"): can it be a more specific link, perhaps to a relevant section or daughter article?
 * Some fans were displeased by Ianto's death scene and the end of the relationship, and some even accused one the writers of "deliberately egging on the shippers'."—The "displeased by" pipe is opaque: why not "Ianto's death scene"? "Shippers" is a good link, although you might consider saving some readers the journey to that article by inserting in square brackets a brief gloss of the term (if it's possible to be brief—otherwise not). Tony   (talk)  09:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I am going to clean up the overlinking issues you noted and some of the piped links, however I don't think it's a fair statement to say there is "too much emphasis on his homosexuality" [homosexuality?]; this is where a lot of the real-world notability and critical observation centres. It's hardly as if it gets entire sections, it gets appropriate paragraphs where necessary, and is a fundamental trait of the character.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 09:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may well come over as obsessive. What is the secondary-source evidence that it is a fundamental trait of the character? (More than just one person's published opinion.) Whatever that outcome, the number of links to sexuality-related pages is excessive, especially given that they probably chain to each other, and the repeated references, even in unlinked, are a bit much. What is the big deal? Why don't we run around inserting signs of heterosexuality into articles on fictional characters? Tony   (talk)  11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources that are discussed each assert what makes the content notable. In fact, if something specificially about a character's heterosexuality was groundbreaking or commanded media attention in some way, then it certainly would be included. To say that I have "run around inserting signs" of homosexuality into the article is at best, frankly, shocking. The wikilinks refer to unfamiliar terms to the average user. In cases where the words are common English or parlance, or an obscure piped link, they will be de-linked.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now updated the article to address simple English links. Occasionally, in one or two cases such as "pansexual" and "bisexual stereotyping" where these definitions are complex, important and/or the wording unavoidable, the link has been retained. The ellipses have been fixed to suit the MoS. I hope this is more to your liking.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Support Zythe, it's much better now. I've added a couple of tweaks using the invisibility markup. Mainly it meant taking a few words out here and there. I think in the lead you don't need to refer to jack as bi-sexual, since you're already talking about him as non-heterosexual... I also agree with Tony that the links are over done, especially relating to the LBG terms. Got to give people some credit for brain power. Once the linking is worked out, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, are there still any links which offend?~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks much better. Tony   (talk)  04:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by Moni3 until the following is reconciled.
 * Give me and the other readers who are woefully impoverished of the backstory of Dr. Who some context. The most I ever watched of Dr. Who were five minute stints of episodes from the 1970s just for their guffaw-inducing special effects and props. State in the lead and Television section that it's a science fiction show and define what a companion means, please. What is a Time Agent?
 * Why would he bring a bomb onto his ship?
 * Should this appear on the main page, it should be accessible by readers who are completely unfamiliar with Dr. Who lore. I find the Television section to be bordering on jargon, and an insider's preknowledge of the show and its functions necessary to comprehend the article. I don't understand this sentence: having spent years on Earth waiting to reunite with the Doctor. Jack recruits policewoman Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles) to his team of experts after she discovers them;
 * This too: Jack explains he returned from Satellite 5 to the present day by travelling to 1869 via vortex manipulator, and lived through the 20th century waiting for the Doctor
 * So Torchwood is a person? Or group of something?
 * By the third paragraph in Television I admit, I am out to sea not sure weather to laugh at the article or weep at my own ignorance because the words sound quite funny put together this way without my understanding of what they all mean.
 * I skipped down to Concept and creation: the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph: does it need five cites? Persuade me. If not, consider creating a Notes section. This will clear up the weaselish wording in A number of television critics
 * This sentence is too complex and should be re-punctuated: John Barrowman describes the character in his initial appearance as "an intergalactic conman" and also a "rogue Time Agent" which he defines as "part of a kind of space CIA" and alludes to the moral ambiguity of having "done something in his past" and not knowing "whether it is good or bad because his memory has been erased".
 * Writer Stephen James Walker finds that similarities between Jack and Angel, the heroic vampire from America's Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, have been noted; Does this mean that Walker notes that others have noted it? Or is it a redundancy that should be fixed?

Ok. I'm going to stop here. There is enough for me to oppose, and I tend not to go on and on in FACs listing all the problems to fix. I am willing to assist on the talk page, however, if you are interested in my opinions on how to improve the article. My general recommendations for now are to re-read the article as if you had never seen the show and ask if the elements in explaining Harkness would make sense, and print the article, read it out loud even to yourself and ask yourself in each sentence if what you are trying to say can be streamlined. Make no mistake; I think the article has potential and there are some interesting elements to it. I think it would do very nice on the main page when it gets there. Drop me a note if you wish for further input. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Refs mix ISO-style (YYYY-MM-DD), Day Month Year, and even a few Month Day, Year dates. Use one for all of them. I suggest either ISO-style (the most common in this article's refs) or DMY (MDY is used more in the US than the UK). --an odd name 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Will address. Back at uni now, but will get a good look at soon. The problem with the context has been not bloating the whole thing (a major possibility with science fiction), as well as satisifying other editors' requirements for immense detail, and whatnot. Some of the other things are minor or are correct but could do with being more clear.163.1.167.161 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.