Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doomsday (Doctor Who)

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 00:20, 27 January 2008.

Doomsday (Doctor Who)

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it to be of a quality similar to The Joy of Sect and Through the Looking Glass. I've been working on it for several months from this, full of a unwieldy plot summary and too many inconsequential points, to its current status. I am aware that the plot summary is about 620 words long, when it should be about 100 less, but 600 appears to be the lower limit where the plot summary loses clarity. Will ^(talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Resolved stuff from Buc

"who appeared several episodes previously" say exactly how many.
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Rose was used several times in the third series, from an attempt to use the memory to weaken the Doctor in "The Shakespeare Code", to being an annoyance to companions Donna Noble in "The Runaway Bride" and Martha Jones in "Gridlock"." I don't quite follow this sentence. Could do with re-pharing it.
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the cast section and put it in the infobox
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After its initial airing, the episode was released on DVD with "Fear Her" and "Army of Ghosts" on 25 September 2006." needs ref
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It was first aired on CBC Television on 19 February 2007." and this
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The award was won by "The Girl in the Fireplace", an episode from the second series that had aired several weeks previously." not really anything to do with the Doomsday episode.
Done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of refs do say what site they are from.
Done
A Forum is not a reliable source.
- A forum in itself, no. Several people from the BBC (most notably Steven Moffat) do visit and post in the forum, Lizo included.
  - How can you be sure it's really them? Buc (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Several posts on the forum by Lizo, most notably that post (details about the boxset which wasn't to be released for two months) and the Newsround plugs. Will ^(talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't really answer my question. Buc (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I just showed you that it's most likely Lizo. Steven Moffat has posted there. David Tennant has an account (inferred; he has said he has visited the, as-of-2008, registration-required forums)
        I'll say again: How do you know it's really them? Buc (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Removed the Lizo cited clause. Although I'm pretty sure it is Lizo, we can't be 100% sure. Will ^(talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia itself is a reliable source either.
- It doesn't source Wikipedia.
  - See Ref #3-#8. Buc (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's citing the episode, not citing Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The links are internal though. I'm it would be easy to an external equivalent for these citations. Buc (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't mean that they cite Wikipedia, though. The episodelink parameter is optional. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your basicly saying something on Wikipedia is right because it says it on Wikipedia. Buc (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I'm saying the link is just a link. David Whitaker certainly did not write the Wikipedia article when one of the creator's was an infant and the other wasn't even born. Will ^(talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine. Not the way I would do things but it's not something that is likly to be questioned so I'll let it slide. Buc (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Ref #24 has the date outside of brackets while all others are in brackets?
- I don't know. It uses the normal {{cite}} tags (like cite news, etc).

That's it for now. BTW your Through the Looking Glass link is the wrong article. Buc (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Suddenly, he looks up" Why Suddenly?
- Done, removed. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Overnight ratings showed that 7.72 million people watched "Doomsday" with a 43% share of the audience. The episode peaked at 8.58 million viewers in the last five minutes of the episode. " Needs ref.
- Done, although the citation in the following sentence is fine. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could do with a mention of the unpredented appeaence of both the Daleks and Cybermen in the lead.
Not done Will ^(talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008

(UTC)

- I see nothing in the lead mentioning this. Buc (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, misread. Done. Will ^(talk) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

The track as a whole represents Rose's unbridled energy and her heart beating as she searches for the Doctor." Don't quite under this sentence. How does the track do this? ~~and what does "as a whole" mean?~~
- removed. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only the second piont has been addressed. Buc (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not done - I have access to the Music and Monsters Confidential episode - It's a quote from RTD quoting Gold. Will ^(talk) 21:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Should have quotation marks then. Buc (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What's in the article is not a direct quote, it's a paraphrase. Will ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a paraphrase I don't understand. Buc (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it better now? Will ^(talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What!?" not very encyclopaedic.

Done - it's a bit relevant to the episode - he actually says it three times. He does it again at the end of another episode under similar circumstances. Still, it's taking up twnety words I'm trying to get rid of to make the plot section as small as it can while being clear.
- Ah! no what I mean was having both a question and exclamation mark was not very encyclopaedic. But leave it as it is now if you think it's best. Buc (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will ^(talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

Weak oppose
"Noel Clarke and Phil Collinson felt the position should have been given to Mickey." Could do with saying why they thought this and why there suggestion was turned down. On a side note has this article had a ce? Buc (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't go into detail why it should've been Mickey, neither does the commentary (which are the only two places where the information can be gotten from, really). And what do you mean by "ce"? Will ^(talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ce mean copy-edit. What do they say then. Buc (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sullivan says that there was a rift, and all the commentary says is that Clarke was "petitioning" (Davies' words, not mine) for the privilege. Re c/e: I haven't requested a copyedit because I find the LOCE too slow; I had an article on FAC (now FA) two months ago and they haven't got to that yet. Will ^(talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rarther weak evidence. Remove it. Buc (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want the commentary transcript of the relevant part:

Gardner: And [Rose's] dad...
Davies: How much did Noel Clarke want to be the one who came through? He was petitioning, he was phoning me up!
Gardner: And it could've been Mickey.
Davies: And you all... didn't you want it to be Mickey?
Gardner: Phil wanted it to be Mickey, I wanted it to be Pete.

- - - 36:20 to 36:40. The next thirty or so seconds go on about the reason they chose Pete. If you want to verify, [1] Will ^(talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, well if you can incorporate thoughs reasons into the article I might reconsider. Buc (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which was already in the article. I've rewrote that sentence, though. Will ^(talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see nothing wrong with the article, and it definitely conforms to the guidelines. The aritcle is well sourced, and all above issues have been resumed. - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. Buc (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is still no mention of the nomination on the article's talk page. If this is done, then great - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of it- it's the top banner. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! Well, I guess this removes any opposition that I have to the idea - Weebiloobil (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made a number of minor changes to the article. I did not understand the plot section, but this article will generally only be read by one who follows the show. Nice work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, under length, it says "2nd of 2 episodes", but I do not see why this information is relevant. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the plot section is "Dr Singh, Mickey and Rose are trapped in a sealed room within Torchwood Tower, with four Daleks who have emerged from the void ship approach them." Should the "with" be changed to "when"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence of the plot section is "He looks up to see a woman in a wedding dress, who sharply demands that he tell her where she is." Who is "she"? If the "she" is an unknown character, then maybe it should be italicized or put in quotation marks. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, there is no mention of the episode being a series (season) finale in the lead and I think that there should be. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "2nd of 2 episodes" refers to the story's length in particular, as the old series had serials ranging from 2 to 14 episodes long.

Sentence fixed.
- This also appears in the infobox under length which is very confusing. It also implise there were only 2 episodes in the whole series. Buc (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Will ^(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the episode, the identity of the woman was not known.

Done. Will ^(talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the woman is revealed in the following episode The Runaway Bride, but is not known here. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Will has done an excellent job here, and I think it's good enough for FA. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Object~~ ~~Strong Oppose~~ On my cursory read-through, I found various stylistic issues, and a number of places where the plot could be tightened. I expect that there are more still present. There is one statement that I think needs a citation (I marked it in the text). I'm extremely surprised that the Doctor Who Magazine hasn't been used as a source – I would have expected it to be a valuable resource on the production of the episode (the producer writes a "production notes" column for the magazine). No mention of the Radio Times covers? There would have been a cover story in that Radio Times, which would also be expected as a source. Bluap (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What stylistic issues? DWM is cited by A Brief History of Time Travel, which is cited by this page. And with regards to the plot, I invite you to try and shorten the plot while keeping it coherent. Will ^(talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, you actually did try. The plot is below 600 words now which isn't anything to complain about - the GA version summary was about 200 words longer. Will ^(talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the plot setion is a bit long. Buc (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's now around 540 words. Will ^(talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my opinion to strong oppose, since the article editors have responded to my citation request by simply removing the {{fact}} tag, rather than finding a suitable reference. (The citation at the end of that paragraph does not support the statement. Parallel worlds are a recurring motif in science fiction: there are plenty of stories that could have inspired this aspect of the episode) Bluap (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is just the worst reason to oppose anything ever. I am quoting the source here.

Pullman also talked about the end of series two of Doctor Who - when Billie was left in a parallel world - and how similar some people say it is to his own Dark Materials series.
"I was flattered by it," Pullman said.
"That's how stories work. Stories are made out of other stories. I borrowed things for His Dark Materials. He [Russell T Davies] took my ending and twisted it to fit his story. That's fine."

That to me does not say the parallel worlds aspect alone came from Pullman, and I don't believe it did: the writer of this episode resurrected a one-serial villain that no-one on Outpost Gallifrey guessed, so I'm pretty sure he'd know about the whole season that was set in another universe. The citation to me says that the end bore similarities to His Dark Materials beyond parallel universes. Either that, or Pullman has delusions of grandeur. Will ^(talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Missing publisher, is this a reliable source?

Smith and Jones AI figure (April 2, 2007). Retrieved on January 24, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Yes, OG's news is a reliable source as they do their fact-checking quite rigourously. Will ^(talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.