Contents

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who/archive2

Doctor Who[edit]

Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article review/Doctor Who/archive1

Nominator(s): Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the problems with referencing and citations which caused this article to be delisted have been resolved, I would like to nominate this article for a return to FA status. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's quite a few maintenance tags and several paragraphs are unsourced. We also have many paragraphs that only last a sentence. I would like to see a GA review first. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although I don't see tags (if they were removed without doing any work, shameful) I agree with Taylor's assessment, there are a lot of basic MOS/style guide issues with this article, inconsistent citations (some full, others needing more information), list incorporation issues, large swaths of text that are either poorly referenced or unsourced. The table in "Viewership#International" could be formatted better. While a GA-review isn't required as a first step, the article would have benefitted from actually doing something with the previous two GA-reviews (several issues still outstanding) and/or a peer review, or seeking input from other editors participating with a relevant WikiProject or on other DW-related articles. Also there is a previous FAC from FEB2013 that cites the very same issues mentioned here. This candidate is not prepared for FAC and requires a lot of work before it should be brought up again. An article is not ready for FAC automatically because the subject of the article celebrates its 50th anniversary today. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fails WP:WIAFA criterion 1e - too many recent changes, particularly in the last 24 hours, some of which was edit-and-revert but a good proportion is pure WP:FANCRUFT. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Fails #1e as stated. Maybe try and make it a GA? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.