The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 00:39, 29 January 2008.

List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films[edit]

I'm nominating this because I think it is of a sufficient quality to be a featured list, and I think it is of a better quality than the list of serials that passed FLC last month. While the list does not use cite.php, it still uses an acceptable method of citing. Will ^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead is kind of short, and some of the statements need sources, ie. "A third submission was similarly rejected as Ian and Barbara were due to leave, and the script was dropped.". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.... I've rewrote the ((cn)) statement, and tried to extend the lede into another paragraph explaining the various reasons. Pointers on what needs to be sourced would be nice. Will ^(talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shada wasn't really unmade, it was unfinshed. Buc (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shada does fall under the list's scope, though - "never fully produced". Will ^(talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overall looks pretty good. A few suggestions:
- The lead is too short, given the amount of content the rest of the list has. One thing the article is missing is a bit of contextualization, ie and explanation of the show itself. For instance, many of the sections are named "1st Doctor" "2nd Doctor" etc. What does that mean? As someone ignorant to the show in general, I'm not sure what that means. Explaining stuff like that in the lead would help expand the lead a bit, as well as contextualize the list the follows.
  - I'll work on contextualising the Doctors soon (as in tonight, or tommorow morning). I've had a go at the lede. Will ^(talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few external links would be nice.
  - Added one. Will ^(talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you (or more importantly the sources provided) define "which were seriously considered for production"? Please explain/expand upon in the lead.
And that's pretty much it. Everything else looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon Sullivan, the main source, highlights them as green and defines them as "those which the production office had every intention of making, but which ultimately -- for a variety of reasons -- they never did." Will ^(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, and my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you have a paragraph in the lead to expand a little bit on the regenerations bit. I understand it, I watch the programme, but I don't think a noobie would. Only a sentence or two to explain the section headings. Also, could we not have the projected season dates included as well? Or is that only speculation? Woody (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been up for 25 days now, is there active editing or conversation here? If not, then I am going to close this nom as failed. Its been up for long enough.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List noms do not get failed due to lack of interest in the candidacy. Will ^(talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. If they've been around more than a month, then they get closed as a fail and relisted. A fresh nom usually gets more attention than a month old one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I was asking was whether or not comments are still being addresses, not if there is a lack of interest in the nom. Inactivity by the nominator is basis for failing. That was my question, and by responding you have basically answered it, cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - great list, but there are some sourcing issues. I went through and placed fact tags in places where I noticed them, though I may have missed some and some of them may be covered by sources used earlier in their paragraphs. Geraldk (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, they almost all were; so I've removed the tags for now. I'll work through them tomorrow if I get time to add duplicate references as required; if I find any that aren't duplicates I'll add the tag back in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I think that's done. There were two or three new refs needed, but I've been able to find sources for them. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Geraldk (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (belatedly) - an interesting, informative and well-researched piece. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:53, 28 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 list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.