Wikipedia:Featured article review/Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)/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 by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC).

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

 * Notified: Sceptre, WikiProject Doctor Who, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, 2023-01-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was considering nominating this article for TFA in April, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the episode's airing, but I do not think it's ready for the main page nor do I have the background knowledge to fix it. One concern is sourcing: most reviews of the episode are from its airing in 2008 and do not include retrospective perspectives and information on its reception relative to other Doctor Who episodes. Other concerns include a "Donna's mime" section which I think should be removed (it was added after the article's FAC) and the "Critical reception" section falls into the X says Y trap. I'm hoping this FAR will inspire editors to fix up this article before a TFA run. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look and fixed a few blatent errors. I think the lede needs a bit tightening up and the reception also needs the modern cites that have been found, and also a bit of a c/e to make it flow like a traditional reception section. Otherwise seems pretty decent. Don't think it's a long way off.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Paging User:Sceptre, whose original FA candidate this was back in 2008.  SN54129  17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC I agree with Lee above that the article is not far from a save. However, I am still concerned about the reception section's formatting and the lack of retrospection about the episode's placement in the wider programme (in terms of plot, comparison in "best episodes of the programme" and other information.) Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that have not been included? They are alluded to above but I'm not finding them.  A section added post-FAC can be removed if it's not up to snuff or necessary for comprehensiveness. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: sources. I posted two examples on the talk page that can be used in the article. However, I think there are more because this is such an iconic show that there has been many "Best of" episode listings that are not included in the article. Although I could Google to find these, I am not enough of a television expert to know which sites are the best sources for this. I did do an academic literature search on WP:LIBRARY but did not find any useful sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs to go to FARC. There's two more recent sources listed on talk, but I don't think this is a situation where the sourcing has changed much.  The "Doctor who microsite" appears to be run by BBC, so that source is okay, and I'd say Metro is okay enough for reviews.  This should be a very easy fix.   - are you willing/able to add the two sources noted on talk?  I can do it myself, but my experience with Dr. Who is watching a single episode about evil gargoyles 8 or 9 years ago and thinking it made no sense, so I'd rather not be the one to try to parse this stuff out. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In the sake of finally getting this resolved, I've incorporated material from one of the two sources listed on the article talk page. - if this is good enough handling of the material, I'll try to work in the other one after my work trip this week.  I'm unconvinced that adding rankings from "Best of" listicles (as alluded to above) is necessarily best practice, and I honestly think this one is very close to the standard. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy enough. Probably needs a bit of general cleanup, but that's true of all FAs. I don't have an issue with this being closed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to get to this, but frankly have not had the desire to tackle this. If others are happy with this, I'm find to close as keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the Tor source as well, although I found it not very useful. I think we're at close without FARC here; the two more recent sources have been added, and the unsourced section has been axed. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Close w/o FARC, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.