Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008.

The Stolen Earth

 *  Nominator(s): Sceptre 
 * previous FAC (22:01, 8 July 2008)

In the article's previous FAC, a major objection was to the article being too new to pass FAC. I believe that the article has stabilised enough to pass the stability requirement of the featured article criteria, which I think is the only part it failed in its previous nomination (the objection about the image is subjective which not much can be done to fix). Sceptre (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The other issue you neglected to mention was the status of fair use images in the article (regarding whether or not they meet the NFCC criteria). Has this been resolved? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did mention it, actually. I believe that not much can be done to fix that objection - the criteria point (#8) is very subjective. What may pass for one user may not for another: opinions range from no fair use to liberal fair use just among admins. Sceptre (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, I missed that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

question Why is the BBC trademark, Image:TARDIS-trans.png, being used to advertise a competing commercial site and is this usage consistant with requirement three of the featured article criteria? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider it's a free image I don't see what part of WIAFA#3 it doesn't meet. —Giggy 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The NFCC (and by extension, the featured article criteria) only deals with copyright, which is global. It doesn't deal with any other restrictions because those are normally national and not applicable to the state of Flordia, where Wikimedia's servers are held. Therefore, barring any extension to the NFCC to deal with trademarks, the image will remain free for any use. Sceptre (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The FA criteria goes beyond NFCC, and the question is, is the use of a BBC trademark to advertise a competing commercial service appropriate? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't argue about the image's use in the template here when discussion after discussion has ended in a consensus decision that that image on that template is appropriate and free. Sceptre (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * is the use of a BBC trademark to advertise a competing commercial service appropriate? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, don't argue about the image's use in the template here when discussion after discussion has ended in a consensus decision that that image on that template is appropriate and free. Sceptre (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * is the use of a BBC trademark to advertise a competing commercial service appropriate? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, don't argue about the image's use in the template here when discussion after discussion has ended in a consensus decision that that image on that template is appropriate and free. Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose inappropriate use of images Fasach Nua (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Inactionable oppose per WP:IDHT. Sceptre (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As a registered user of Tardis wiki, I can assure Fasach Nua that it is not competing with the BBC. This seems to be an extemly bad guesture by someone who is so upset that he cannot get his way on one thing, that he stops an another editor getting his way on a completely different issue. Rather childish behaviour really.81.157.235.65 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

* Oppose — For the most part this is a good article. I am, however, concerned that the non-free image is not used to its full potential. By sticking it at the top of the article -- away from the content it's providing critical commentary on -- I believe it's not "significantly increas[ing the] readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (concerns met)
 * But moving the screenshot out of the infobox would violate the TV MOS (and every other featured television article has their screenshots in the infobox, and FAs are supposed to lead by example) and cause the article to become near-unreadable at 1024*768. I believe that it is suitable in the infobox - remember, the infobox is in the lede, the summary part of the article. Sceptre (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for believing that policy trumps a... guideline (if that). Obviously I was wrong. My resolution is 1024*768 and I found the Doctor Who articles easily readable before the images were moved to the infobox. In my opinion it'd be a good idea to a set an example. Matthew (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A key part of the FAC is that an article must conform to the manuals of style and the NFCC. There is a possible violation of the NFCC if it remains in the infobox, there is a definite violation of the MOS if it's moved. FAC should not be used to set examples. Oh, and the only difference between policy and guideline is the the color of the check marks in the template. Sceptre (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - well written article, avoids overly long in-universe commentary in favour of summarising media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Renewed oppose as per both Matthew and Fasach Nua. About F.N.'s objection to the Tardis image: Just because NFCC doesn't mention this case doesn't mean we can ignore it. Yes, non-copyrighted-but-trademarked images are not automatically banned, but they can be legally problematic in some cases; we need to determine if this is one of them. I (and, if I remember right, many others) find F.N. has a reasonable case here, and his objection has not been met. It is also not "non-actionable" as Sceptre claims, because it is perfectly possible to act upon it and remove the image. As for the screenshot, I'm still not convinced it does anything NFCC-worthy at all (unlike Matthew, I can't even identify a passage of "content it's providing critical commentary on"), and it certainly doesn't do anything crucial in that position. Having non-free images in infoboxes is generally not a good idea, and if project standards call for that, so much the worse for them. By the way, I find that more or less the only scene in the episode on which there's an attempt at non-trivial analysis is the final climax scene ("written by Davies as a pastiche of romance fiction" et cetera). If anything, I'd say this scene would have a much better chance of supporting a non-free image than most others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The trademark issue been discussed to death, concluding time and time again that trademark is not an issue. It is not a matter of wehter FN's 'objection has been met', consensus is that his objection is moot. Further more, FA candidacy is about the article's content; Each oppose presented here today has nothing to say about it's content. And as such, those opposes are inactionable. The fact is that most recent FA nominations are being hijacked by the few that crusade against the use of any fair-use image. This abuse of FAC has to stop: Comment on the article or hold your peace. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 11:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For what's it worth, I agree with the editors who are suggesting that fair use images shouldn't be placed in infoboxes. However, I would prefer a global solution, as opposed to arguing on a case-by-case basis. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of NFCC images in infoboxes is one that probably can be discussed further at the TV project and/or WP:NFCC but primarily for WP:NOR/WP:NPOV reasons - I do agree that there is a difference between using an official title card/poster to identify the work in the infobox, and the use of a user-selected screenshot in the infobox, suggesting that that image is "officially" the representation of the work. This also points to Matthew's comment that such images are generally better served when peppered in the text that they are discussed. However, as these guidelines and policies stand now, there is nothing wrong with this article's use - as it is consistent with nearly all other episode FA/GAs as well.  If these policies change, I expect that the current batch of FA/GAs will also change (its effectively trivial). --MASEM  13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked at a discussion of the trademark issue, the outcome was most certainly not a "consensus that the issue is moot". The outcome was inconclusive, with a significant number of people still agreeing with F.N. -- As for the other images, objections against their use are actionable comments about the article, very much so, so stop obfuscating. I'm not "crusading" (you are); I'm not "highjacking" anything; and I won't be "holding my peace". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to Matthew: there is a possible violation of the NFCC if the screenshot remains in the infobox, there is a definite violation of the MOS if it's moved out. Both are needed to pass FAC, not just the NFCC, and it is foolish to make what may be a violation into what is a violation. The TV MOS states that screenshots should be placed in the respective infoboxes, and I'm sure that one of the reasons of the (early) Doctor Who good article candidacies failed because the screenshot placement failed the MOS. The question about that image really hinges on whether it violates the NFCC - just because someone says it does, doesn't mean it does. NFCC8 is a really subjective criterion, and simply stating that the NFCC is broken (especially on points 1 and/or 8) hasn't stopped candidacies before. I am willing to assume good faith that the image was indeed uploaded in compliance with the consensus interpretation of the NFCC. I also wish that you don't take the issue here; FAC should not be used for breaching experiments. As far as the trademark issue goes - I don't like the big purple box as it is, and I'd much rather prefer a smaller, less attention grabbing box. Sceptre (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in MOSTV mandating that an article must have an image in the infobox, much less that an article can't have images anywhere else if the infobox hasn't one. If there was anything as foolish as that in the guideline, the guideline would have to be changed, and quickly. And I'd reserve a special Dalek-engineered timeshifted troutslap for anyone who would oppose a FA nomination for not having an image in the box. As for the rest, "assuming good faith" about what the uploader thought about the image is irrelevant here. Also, NFCC isn't broken, it just has to be taken seriously. And it has to be interpreted according to the spirit and intentions behind it, which is, very explicitly, that non-free image use must be minimal. And who's doing a breaching experiment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the breaching experiment remark is rather towards Matthew than to you, but I still do not feel the image should be moved against precedent and the MOS. Removal, however, is something you can do yourself, but you will get a lot of flak and possibly reverted for it. And yes, the NFCC does state usage of non-free media is supposed to be minimal, but the question is how minimal? Some admins wouldn't even allow Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, while some are perfectly fine with screenshots in infoboxes. Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: oppose stricken after constructive discussion with Sceptre and some changes both to the Tardis template and the infobox picture. No further image-related objections from my side at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: oppose stricken after constructive changes made by Sceptre to both the Tardis template and the infobox picture. No further image-related objections from my side at this point. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator - this kinda took me by surprise: there's a Doctor Who Magazine special coming out tommorow which will contain some more source material. I hope this won't compromise the chances of this FAC passing or failing. Sceptre (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not much, I think; it mostly contains information about filming the episode. Sceptre (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per PhilKnight. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 09:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a few concerns, and I was wondering if they could be addressed prior to my casting my vote:
 * The caption for the lead photo seems awfully long. How about: "Described by lead actor David Tennant as a "bitter scene of high emotion".[1], and Rose cradles a dying Doctor." The rest of the information is contained within the article.
 * On a side note, I think the considerations of free images versus non-free in the infobox are fairly moot. Recently, Palpatine, a TFA had to run without an image, as the images in the article were all non-free. Someone goofed and added an image to the article from the actor who portrayed him (which was reverted out eventually). The point is, FA and even TFA do not require free images for promotion. I think that opposing articles for which there is a dearth of free images constitutes a de facto exclusion of those types of articles, but that's just my opinion.
 * I talked about FutPerf with this; he felt it was the best way to make sure that the image unequivocally passed NFCC. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that the caption needs to be as long. The example above offers a link proving the worthiness of the image, and not even FN could mess with it in good conscience. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Though, at the same time, there isn't anything wrong with the caption. If length were a limiting factor in writing, articles would be much, much, shorter. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The cast list - is there a specific reason we have to list every single person in the infobox? Does the article suffer if we remove the Drunk Man from the list? I think not.
 * It does lend itself to a slippery slope - if you remove Drunk Man (which I think should go), why not Scared Man, or Suzanne? For my part, I think any unremarkable one-shot characters shouldn't be included: in this case Drunk Man, Suzanne, the newsreader, and possibly the Albino Servant also should go. The rest are fine (including Scared Man) because we discuss them in some way in the article (even the Scared Man), or the portrayers are regulars to the show (i.e. Kasey and Briggs).
 * On second thoughts, maybe they should be credited; there's a massive list of uncredited actors in the DWM special, which includes the milkman at the start, several redshirts, several UNIT workers, and the couple of looters Rose says "d'ya like my gun?" to. I don't know for what reason they were credited, but it seems to me that the BBC thinks they're important enough. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that, because of the mention of the Scared Man in the production info, it deserves to remain. Normally, though, we don't need these bit roles. Most television programs don't name Thug #1 or Whackjob Albino #5 in the credits; its extraneous information, and unnecessary. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, I can't fathom why those parts got credits and others didn't; I don't think it's having a speaking part, because the Milkman had one, and going backwards in the S4 Companion, several people with one line weren't credited, whereas some with no lines (notably Paul Kasey and Jimmy Vee, who get dubbed over in post-production) were credited. It's a conundrum, but I think, as long as the BBC credit them, and set them apart from extras, we should too. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a shade of an earlier issue regarding the listing of credits. I am not suggesting that we remove all of them, but rather to exercise a bit more restraint. This is an FAC; it can afford to be more selective than the typical article because others are going to look to it as a reference point for other articles. I believe it needs to be trimmed down a bit. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unclear why Davies' comment about crossovers requires a text box. Is there a reason it cannot be incorporated into the existing text? While I understand that it discusses the crossover, the greater importance would seem to be the story arc carrying over elements from series 1 to a grand conclusion in series 4 - that seems to stick out as the most important feature or production and writing, not the idea that kids want daleks to fight Star Wars droids.
 * The use of quote boxes were based on their use in already successful candidacies for Doomsday (Doctor Who) and Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) (and the successful GACs The Fires of Pompeii and Planet of the Ood), and the use of images was based on Through the Looking Glass (Lost) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park). To be honest, quote boxes are my fallback if I can't find free media. I use both (and blockquotes) because the featured article criteria require an article to be engaging. The best way to do this, I feel, is to include short informative "snippets" and breaks in the article. This allows the reader to rest for a minute, then continue, and engages the reader more than if there was paragraph after paragraph of text. It doesn't look that bad ether. About the placement about the Davies quotebox in general: that was put there as representative of the production in general - the episode was as much about a grand finale as it was about the strands closing in. That's why I put it at the top of the production section. Though looking at it now; yes, it does look a bit off, and effectively squashes the text between it and the infobox. I've changed it to a blockquote; tell me what you think. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it, and I kinda like it better than the text box. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, is there a reason we aren't including in parentheses that "series" are known as "seasons" here in the States? I am not suggesting we go Americentric, but a notation of the different usage might avoid confusion.
 * I think it's evident in the text - contextually, the term is easily changeable with "season".
 * I think mentioning it in parentheses at the first mention improves the article. Towards that end, I edited it in. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And Sceptre removed it, with an odd edit summary. This is not the English Wikipedia, it is the English language Wikipedia; we have to note in our FA candidates the possibility that terms might have to be explained. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to type in the summary something to the effect of "When episode articles for American shows have '(referred to "series" in the UK)', then we should reciprocate". More people speak Commonwealth English (around a billion at a conservative estimate) than American English (around 300 million). Sceptre (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there reference to the final episode in the second to last episode (The last sentence of the Writing subsection of Production)? It isn't necessary, and strays a bit beyond the scope of this article.
 * At that point we're talking about the cliffhanger, which was (obviously) split over the two episodes. I felt that we had a lot less content than what was available in the source material, and I felt it wouldn't stray too off-topic to still be relevant. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While it isn't really part of the specific subject of the article, i guess I am okay with it remaining. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need a picture of Russell Davies in the Critical Reception area; he has his own article, and his image is located there. Part of the resistance to these articles is that they tend to get stuffed with images in the mistaken belief that images lend credibility to an article. They do not.
 * See my point about the images and quotebox above. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Davies' picture isn't necessary. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may not be explicitly necessary, but I think there is a net positive to having the image; as I said above, it offers a nice break in the article text in a section where the reader may switch off their brain. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never really considered an encyclopedia the sort of place where one switches off their brain; it would be rather like going to a library to play video games. Remember that the article, if approved, becomes something of a template for others. We are allowed - encouraged, even - to hold to a higher standard. If it isn't vital to the article, it doesn't need to be there. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more human nature to switch off your brain when you've got a screen full of text. It's like reading a textbook; you need something to rest your brain on for a second, which is what the picture does. It stops the reader from becoming bored when reading the article. Sceptre (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While that uncited statement might be true (and if it is, hope you never end up in one of my classes, boyo ;) ), there are already two images in the article, and this image is extraneous. Tell me how the image is absolutely vital to the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Images don't need to be absolutely vital to a featured article, they just have to be appropriate. I think it is. Sceptre (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your points by indentation, becuase it's easier. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good plan; I've responded in the same way


 * Support; I've copyedited portions and looked over the rest, and it looks ready to me. —Giggy 13:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — I'm happy with Sceptre's improvement. Matthew (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.