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 User:Sceptre 22:01, 8 July 2008 [1].

The Stolen Earth[edit]

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk)

"The Stolen Earth" was an episode of Doctor Who that aired last week. As part of a season finale, the amount of source material was so abundant it was easy to flesh out the episode's comprehensiveness and notability. I am nominating this article because I feel it passes the criteria set out at WP:FA?. While the page has had a large amount of editing over the past week, in the past few days most edits have been towards the same end, not in conflict with each other, and not significant changes. Thanks to Seraphim Whipp, who checked the article for prose. Sceptre (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay Gary King (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other two are done (I think). And yeah, I deliberately kept the link to the disambiguation because the ref says "soothsayer" and the page gives the definition while disambiguating. Might do with a link to wikt:soothsayer, though. Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Haven't really had time for an in-depth look, these are just some superficial comments on the prose.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Davros75-08.jpg fails WP:NFCC, is an image really needed to show that something is unchanged? can this be conveyed with GFDL text? how important is it? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a BBC trademark Image:TARDIS-trans.png being used to advertise a competing commercial service on this article? It seems inappropriate to me Fasach Nua (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your oppose is inactionable. Sceptre (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? You can address the concern by either removing the image, write better content around it that justifies its presence, or at least write a more convincing rationale explaining explicitly why this particular image, in this particular place on the page, is required and what it is supposed to achieve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fut.Perf, I know you're not a fan of infoboxes, but that doesn't make anything in them inherently evil. As far as that planets screenshot goes, I think that it does pass the "critical commentary" part of NFC (which allows it to pass NFCC). The screenshot shows the culmination of two story arcs in the series which are integral to the plot and the production of the past four series - the Shadow Proclamation and the missing planets. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical commentary"? You mean the image provides "critical commentary" on its own? How can it do that? Images don't talk. Images can't criticise or analyse anything. An image can never, ever, provide commentary; it can only support commentary. For it to support commentary, there must be commentary in the text. The image shows a few people standing around randomly in a room with weird shiny spherical objects around them. The image alone helps to understand nothing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sceptre. The TARDIS image has been discussed extensively, and the outcome has always been that it's use constitutes no problem. Fasach Nua is unwilling to accept this consensus. As use of Image:The Stolen Earth - Shadow Planets.png goes, this should be discussed at the proper venue; opposing use of specific fair-use images in a FAC procedure is not appropriate. FAC is no venue for fair-use review. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with FA criterion #3. "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Sceptre, the concerns raised above are actionable, as highlighted by Fut. Perf. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make this "actionable" in a more constructive way: let me, again, bring in the perspective of the absolutely clueless reader who's never watched a minute of a Dr Who show. Looking at that image in the infobox, with the present caption, I had no idea what those shiny spherical objects were supposed to be. I thought they were some bizarre objects of interior decoration. It took me quite a while to conceive of the idea that they might be supposed to be the actual planets in question, magically shrunk. Are they? If yes, why on earth (no pun intended) isn't the article talking about that? "The doctor finds the earth in a room, magically shrunk to the size of a ball" or something like that. Add some sourced analysis of how those special effects were done, or whatever. If that's what it's supposed to show, it actually might pass as an interesting addition to the article. But, for god's sake, say these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even at 275px on a 15in CRT, it's apparent they're hologramic (there's a computer in the lower-right). Note added, though. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Even at 1000px on a 25in screen, a clueless reader like me isn't obliged to know that people in Dr Who shows use "hologramic" simulations in order to trace lost planets, or how one would do such a thing. See? If that fact is an essential element of the plot, or if it constitutes a particularly notable element in its cinematic artwork, then say so, and the image makes sense. If it's not, the image is of course still of questionable worth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holographic, I mean. Sceptre (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry for rubbing in the typo, that was of course just a minor joke. But the rest was serious and still stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That scene is a major plot element. Not only do two thematic motifs get revealed (as it says in the production), the Doctor's use of the simulator allows him to discover partially why they were stolen (i.e. they were stolen because they rearrange into a perfect alignment - that's said in the plot) Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can follow that. You've explained that the image shows that scene, and you've explained why the scene is important for the plot. But that doesn't answer how the image is important for understanding the scene. Different thing. All the things you just said above make precisely as much sense (or as little sense) to someone who has seen the image as to someone who hasn't. In fact, the image doesn't help me in the least in understanding how "two thematic motifs get revealed", or even how the planets "rearrange into a perfect alignment". For an image to show something important is not the same as for it to actually be important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like to change the screenshot, but if I did, would this screenshot be allowed (obviously better quality). That image shows Dalek Caan and Davros, the former on an elevated platform and bathed with light (in a way that is hard to describe their relationship - in the episode, Caan predicts the future and Davros acts on his prophecies). Failing that, how about this? Might not be a better claim to fair use, but it's an important point that it was only a glancing shot, not an on-target shot. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, to me, this shows an old guy riding one of of a group of overgrown bumper cars on a fun fair, with a random assortment of kitchen mixers and whisks stuck into their tops. Sorry, but I'm probably not the right person to discuss this image... :-) Anyway, I don't see anything in the text right now that the image would be related to in some obvious sense, so, hard to tell. As I keep saying, first write the text, then, if and when then text requires an image, go get an image.
Of course, in a sense, your question really reveals (again) the basic mistake in the whole approach. You want some image, no matter which, if not the one then the other. I could be mean and say, if you could live without the Dalek image, or without the deathray image, up to now, why would it suddenly become important now just the moment another image is left out? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith that the uploader had ensured it was NFCC-compliant. I don't upload fair use images myself anymore unless I'm positively sure that it would pass all ten aspects of the NFCC. At the same time, I didn't want to remove any images because I got a lot of flak for removing something that was definitely violating policy: there's a difference between being bold and being foolish. Sceptre (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have, but I don't have notes on this site saying that it's been considered reliable. Just for Outpost Gallifrey. Yep, I'm human and I sometimes miss things. Maybe I have on this site, since I do a lot of FAC reviews of sources, things tend to blur together. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article simply isn't ready yet. It seems to me that the article is being fast-tracked to legitimize a lot of fairly unique changes in how we standardize our television articles. With the new Television MOS coming online soon, there is even more reason to think this article needs to wait, as it would likely fail to conform to those MOS guidelines.
As well, I am not convinced that enough time has passed since its broadcast to allow for the article to have been seen by a substantial number of contributors. The ones who have been working on the article are fairly die-hard fans, and while its nifty to have something be a labor of love, it also makes for a 'can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees' situation. A lot of the article is still written in a way that is mostly esoteric and unaccessible for the regular reader. This is a development that only occurs over time, and not rushed through to make a point.
Lastly, while there is indeed marked improvement to the article, it is still very much in flux, and most of us depend on FA articles to be pretty much static, so as to better serve as examples for other articles striving for GA and FA.
This article isn't ready yet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When should the new TV MOS be in place? If it's not long in the future, I don't mind withdrawing this candidacy for the mean time. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TVMOS was made part of the MOS five days ago. Sceptre (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems to me that the article is being fast-tracked to legitimize a lot of fairly unique changes in how we standardize our television articles."
And what changes would that be? Articles using the same format have been promoted to FA before, and in the same timeframe, most notable Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). After reading WP:MOSTV, I can find no fault, and I believe your oppossition is only based on personal preferences. Nothing wrong with that, but please try to avoid making it appear as if some policy was broken, using words as "legitimize". As it stands, this article meets MOSTV. — Edokter • Talk • 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I don't see how it violates the TV MOS. The structure is fine and within the MOS limits. Sceptre (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I was unclear:
  1. the casting list in the article doesn't meet the infobox MOS portion, in that we have previously and apparently reinforced the notion that we follow the BBC credit roll exclusively, and yet, we are still slapping each other with the dead trout of companions in there. As well, we are listing the characters as well as the actors they portray, whereas most FA articles about episodes detail the cast/character lists in a separate section of the article.
  2. We cannot seem to keep an image in the infobox of the article. Granted, a lot of that is due to a hyper-constrictive agenda reinterpreting what "decorative" images are. That is a blow against the stability that an FA article requires.
  3. The text box in the production section is unnecessary, wehreas simple s-quotes would suffice.
  4. Episodes aren't uniformly italicized throughout the article.
  5. the Daleks subsection doesn't belong in casting as a subsection of production alongside Davros, but rather in the subsection of writing.
  6. The critical reception section is twice as long as the synopsis, which translates roughly as 'too friggin' long.' Some care can be taken to summarize comments; it reads like a fan article. Even if there isn't a negative review of the episode (which I find rather difficult to believe), we can certainly pare down all the gushing praise. and return the article to a semblance of objective neutrality.
  7. Russell Davies' picture is completely unnecessary to the article.
  8. As alluded to before, there are far too many significant discussions and edits still occurring with the article. It is atypical for articles this new to be nominated for FAC. It isn't There just yet. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
  1. I still don't exactly see how it fails the MOS still - it's horribly vague on how they should be listed. In any case, it passes the DW project's MOS which was discussed along with recent changes to the MOS a few months ago.
    And vague deliberately - MOSTV's talk page has a large discussion between you, Bignole, and Edokter about this issue. I don't think that you should really use this FAC to push your agenda.
  2. That's out of my hands, but it still doesn't fail the stability criterion.
  3. Precedent in FAs; see Partners in Crime. Though I don't know why it was moved under writing... it was supposed to be the equivalent to an image under the production section.
  4. Follows WP:MOS-T: Doctor Who used to be in a serial format, hence why pre-2005 stories are in italics.
  5. It's a subsection of production, not casting. And if you look, it talks about both the writing and Briggs' voice work.
  6. There was one negative review I could find - the Independent. The fact there are very few, if just the one, negative reviews of the episode is because of its AI score of 91%. And the note about the depth: on the Partners in Crime FAC, a review brought up how critical reception sections on TV articles are horribly summaritive when some reviewers write ten to fifteen paragraphs.
  7. There's a precendent in FAs for that too; see Through the Looking Glass (Lost); Confirmed Dead; etc.
  8. Doesn't fail the stability criterion, though - it's not changing day to day; apart from Tony/Anticipation/Jenny's removal, the article has stayed reasonably stable since Friday.
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sceptre's comments:
  1. Actually, it doesn't. A fairly sizable consensus (which I will point out that I opposed) emerged that we follow the BBC credits exclusively: not in alphabetical order or whatever, but as the BBC line editor chooses to list them in the credit rolls at the end of the episode. As the credits do not list the cast members as Companions (and the oft-noted source within the BBC marking all of the characters as companions isn't applied uniformly enough within the project to warrant application in this article), we don't make the intuitive, OR leap and do so ourselves.
And do us both the huge favor of not presuming (and misrepresenting) an agenda on my part; it's bad faith, and only serves to create tangential and potentially unpleasant conversations. The conversation alluded to specifically addressed alphabetizing cast lists and removing the redundancy of character names from the infobox. Once it was determined that WPDW was allowed to determine its own cast list format, it was then noted that within that the project MOS dictates we follow cast lists. I pointed out that I disagree with that consensus, but I am going to follow/enforce it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Actually, if any part of the article is unstable, then the whole article isn't.
  2. One article out of hundreds of FA do not precedent make, but that is precisely my argument as to why this article isn't ready yet. If it utilizes the argument that one from hundreds of articles represents precedent, then there are inherent issues remaining to be addressed. FA articles should resemble one another in quality and format, especially those within the same category (like Media).
  3. Post-2005 episodes are to be italicized. There are some that are not.
  4. I remember reading the FAC discussion; it was you who made the complaint about critical comments being subjected to over-summarization. There is a problem here with it going too far in the other direction. If the critics have something particularly witty or insightful to note, that is what should be quoted. We aren't gathering flowers, we are sampling the best from the garden.
  5. Respectfully, the examples you provided are not demonstrative of your argument of precendent. The other articles have free images of the actor's protrayed within the episode. Did Davies' appear in the episode at some point? I think not. We link his name to an article, which presumably has this image of him. Okay, allow me to approach the same issue from a different angle: how is Davies' picture critical to the article? By not policing ourselves, we are giving ammo to the NFC#8 crackpots out there determined to do away with episodic images. I submit that we should not hand them the tools they need to dismantle it.
  6. "Reasonably stable since Friday"? Er, considering that Friday was a major holiday for at least one third of the wiki-en (the U.S.), I would point out that the measurement seems a bit premature. As well, FAC expects a lot of stability in an article before FA status is granted. It prevents the significant backlash when (if) the article continues to encounter enough instability to delist it. I cannot speak for others. but yo-yo'ing back and forth isn't the best use of our time. Let's wait until the smoke and dust settles and go from there. Most articles wait at least a month or two. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More