Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe/archive1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

. Eh, waste of time. Will (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nom)
This article just failed its previous FLC yesterday (8/3 - 73%). Among the points raised in opposition of its promotion were: Given the overhaul of the future section so that it is several paragraphs at the top discussing the speculation of the producers and story arcs, as opposed to a "historical account". I've also double checked that the article is in British English (as the subject itself, Doctor Who, is British).
 * The list had some in-universe problems.
 * There was some MoS issues and BrEng errors.
 * The sources may be of questionable reliability.

On the sources, I would like to say that I am confident that these are reliable sources - for example, I am sure that Outpost Gallifrey's canon guide and BBC's episode guide will have had the amount of fact-checking and editorial oversight (OG's guide acknowledges at least 50 people for its research) needed. Yes, I do know a myspace is cited - it is owned by and produced at the reuqest of the BBC (per this and inside knowledge of an then-unaired episode), so I am confident that that source, as well a similar one to Torchwood's site, passes the reliability standards as well. Will (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This article didn't just fail. It isn't a vote and you can't do the maths to get "73%" approval or anything meaningful. Three opposes is far from "just failing". An immediate renomination due to lack of interest is one thing; immediately renominating because you didn't like the result is quite another. If you think the list has improved since those comments were made, then we can have another look... Colin°Talk 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think it has improved since (especially upon your point). Will (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be more explanatory: Yours was the strongest oppose, IMO. Matthew's was easily fixable because while he was harping on about synthesis (which is allowed if both sources make the argument towards to the topic), he also mentioned gramamr errors which were easily fixed. With Digby Trantum's oppose, I did concede on the point about the Titanic (which was premature addition), but as I said, I disagree with his point and contend the sources used (OG, BBC, the myspace) are reliable. The article is much improved from its nomination and even from its failure. I know the current series still has some emphasis, but that's not bias, that's because the current series tends to be more dynamic. Will (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to review it soon. Sorry if I sounded a bit grumpy. It is just usual, you know, to wait a while and reflect and stuff. Colin°Talk 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no evidence that the concerns raised in the previous noms have been sufficiently addressed (See this diff). I'd like to add that the nominations is *not* a vote. As the nomination procedure states: "Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status". On a seperate note to Sceptre: I do not think it is particularly civil to use such language as "harping on". Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.