Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 20:52, 20 April 2008.

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's suitable enough for FA, even though the episode aired only 64 hours ago. There are several episode FAs that are less comprehensive than this (see many Simpsons episode articles, which I find to be a bit lacking.) I've attempted to check for 1a myself and I see nothing overtly wrong with the prose, my skills in checking made better by the "Voyage" nomination. As far as comprehensiveness goes, there's about 350 words on plot, six paragraphs of production, five of reception, which is admittedly quite a lot. The only thing I can think of to make the article larger, given the source material, is the final BARB ratings, which is one statistic that will be released at the end of this week. (but not reason enough to oppose for comprehensiveness) Sceptre (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • BARB ratings have been released, and included. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I'd like to see the opening cited as I don't believe a reader should be forced to read the whole article to backup a claim. I'm also still unconvinced that the present image cannot be described with text, and further it should be placed in the location that it is providing critical commentary for rather than the top of the article.
  • There are also some other smaller issues that requite resolving before I can consider supporting this FAC. Firstly, the production code in the infobox looks false to me - it requires a source. Secondly, I've been able to identify at least one MoS issue (the quotation marks in the opening should not be bolded).
  • Lastly, and more importantly, there's an egregious violation of WP:NPOV in the external links. "The Tardis Index File" is given more presence than the other two ELs. Matthew (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know full well all that the image and EL thing are inactionable. And WP:LEAD discourages citations in the lead section, because the lead section is supposed to be summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't.
    Having just looked at WP:LEAD, I'm curious, which part discourages citing content? "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.", none of that says to me "WP:LEAD discourages citations in the lead section". Matthew (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the stick, and back away from the horse. Regarding the EL thing, Template:FreeContentMeta was kept at TFD two months ago. You seem to be carrying on this vendetta from nine months ago when the template didn't get deleted. And seriously, if people who are well known for being critical at any fair use (ie FutPerf) say "okay, it's fine", there's a hint that maybe you're on the wrong side.
    Regarding citations, there is really no right answer. It's editor preference whether to cite leads or not, and should not be basis for a FAC oppose. It'd be like opposing for the use of American English on, say, Hydrogen. Sceptre (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm oblivious to the horse and stick you speak of. Regarding the DW box, that's irrelevant; it's still a violation of WP:NPOV, and a TfD result does not "unviolate" it. I remember a short while ago the lead-in was cited, and I still wouldn't accept "editor preference" as an excuse not to cite it. Matthew (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're in the minority regarding the box. I'm saying this as someone who wanted it deleted in the first TFD. Four days ago, the lead was cited because a) it's easily challengable, and b) the lead wasn't summary yet (as it was a stub). Sceptre (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that I'm in a minority (a large percentage of Wikipedians would need to be quizzed to convince me). Even so, Wikipedia does not work on majorities and it still violates a policy. As the article violates this policy I'm unable to support this FAC.
    Why is it any less challengeable now? Apart from the episode airing I don't think any thing has changed. Matthew (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's not badly written, the prose could do with a massage. Glitches like these were easy to find:
    • "Catherine Tate was offered to return to the role of Donna Noble"
    • "but died before his scenes for the remainder of the season had been completed"—"were", don't you think?
    • "Based on", fine, so why the undesirable "focused UPon"?
    • "searching regretting declining" in quick succession.

Do ask someone unfamiliar with the text to run through it carefully. TONY (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a minor comb, particularly to sort out WP:PUNC in the reception section. Where are your last two objections? Alientraveller (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the Plot section. Sceptre (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Considering you have produced this in just a couple of days, it does look great, but:
  • I found a few rather jarring sentences, such as: "The episode was filmed in October 2007.[8] It was in the fourth episode filmed of the series, in the fourth production block in the season; this allowed the producers to use props to "seed" later episodes.[5]"
  • And also I would take issue with the sentence: "Together, they attempt to stop alien businesswoman Miss Foster (Sarah Lancashire) from killing thousands of people in London during the birth of the Adipose, short white aliens made from body fat." I was watching Dr Who Confidential last night and I got the impression Miss Foster was not out to kill anyone, just exploit the fat they had. The only reason the first woman died was that Catherine Tate accidentally accelerated the process by stealing a necklace and turning it while in the woman's house.--seahamlass 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I wasn't a fan of the wording of that sentence, and I had a rewrite planned for when I got home (it's hard to edit using IE because I use Modern). With the plot thing, you're right, but at the same time, it's deliberately debatable. Less forceful wording. Sceptre (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is still a reliable source, even if it's termed itself a "blog" to sound hip. And Outpost Gallifrey is a reliable news aggregate. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec with Alientraveller) Easy enough, fixed.
    Yes, but I'd be inclined to say it's reliable as it's part of The Guardian's website.
    I might've said this exact quote before, but the Outpost Gallifrey article is interesting reading. Among other things, it's used as an example of a good fansite in general, the BBC have vouched for it, writers have applauded it. I've seen two of the reviewers cited in the article (Mzimba and Matthewson) post on the forums. As far as their editing and fact checking goes, they're mostly aggregates. They do a lot of fact-checking, and their news page and canon keeper guide has a team of several people (at least a dozen) there for accuracy. Personally, I only (conciously) cite OG for the ratings (as they format it better than BARB) or if I can't get access to a copy of the source material or fill out the citation templates (see Ariel cites, I'm nowhere near the White City) Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading was it was a blog hosted on the Guardian site, i.e. a Guardian or Guardian employee blog. I hate this current trend by newspapers to blur the lines, you know? As for OG, I think you've convinced me. I'm glad you set it out though, so I can refer to this later if someone questions it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a couple of prose issues (which I might just sort out myself later if I have the time, rather than listing here), but I do have a question with regard to the Outpost. I'm happy with it as reliable source; as you say, it's largely an aggregate (heck, I even cited it myself when I cobbled the AI article together), but where does it get its ratings information (and, for that matter, the AI figures)? It seems to me to not just be pulled together from other news sources, and often seems to be the first on the scene, before the information even appears on the BBC site. I don't really have much of an issue with it (I assume it's straight from BARB), but I'd just like that clarification. Steve T • C 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't know myself. They probably get them from the Beeb or BARB. As an aside, Keith Topping is a member of the OG forums and wrote an unofficial guide about ratings that he posts in every thread. The two might be (and probably are) related. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've got to question the use of BBC employee Lizo Mzimba in the critical reception section. The reviewer has a clear conflict of interest with his reviews for the CBBC Newsround website, even if he did genuinely like every episode. From the dozen or so I've checked at random in this list, I haven't come across even one which is truly critical. About the closest was the 3.5 stars for "The Lazarus Experiment". I should also point out that, while likely true, the statement that the episode received "generally positive" reviews is uncited and is based upon editor interpretation. I wouldn't normally complain about that, and feel a tool for doing it, but I've seen similar statements in film articles challenged in the past. Steve T • C 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mzimba's given what's equivalent to a "2" to Fear Her. His normal rating is 3 (taking into account the old, unrated reviews), I think. Sceptre (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still unsure. The text of the "Fear Her" review is hardly scathing, seemingly going out of its way to find the good in the episode. And I don't think there's been one since then (even reviews of the episodes widely considered to be poor) which has been truly critical. Still, in the morning I'll read Mzimba's reviews of every episode so far to get a better appreciation of his style, see if that makes me feel any better about it. All the best, Steve T • C 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsround is for kids. Sceptre (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know that. :) I also like that a kids' reviewer is used in the article for a show partially/mostly aimed at them. I was using "style" as an all-encompassing term for the different aspects of the content of Mzimba's reviews. Essentially, what I mean is that once he's "known" to me, I'll better be able to determine his reliability as a source in the criticism section. Steve T • C 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify on this, my concern arises over the fact that Lizo Mzimba is a BBC employee, reviewing a BBC programme, for a BBC publication. And here's my main objection: can you honestly say to me that you think that were Mzimba to genuinely hate a bunch of episodes, he'd be allowed to say so? Remember, this is the BBC which routinely, blatantly features on its adult-targeted news programmes advertisements for stories about Who and other BBC shows in the guise of serious news reportage. Add to that the toothless nature of the criticism thus far from Mzimba and I have a serious problem with the use of his review, especially with it cited so prominently. Steve T • C 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I don't order reviews except for "big POV, small POV". Otherwise, it's the order I click on them in Google News and/or the OG review thread. Sceptre (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By "prominently", I meant partly its placement, but also with how much was culled from it. But no matter, you've removed it now. Ta, Steve T • C 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still looking into that above, but in the meantime, the lead could do with updating to be a more accurate reflection of the content of the article, most especially with regard to the Broadcast and reception section. Steve T • C 09:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sceptre (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. Steve T • C 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead Comments Quotations should always be cited. Please take care to avoid excessive repetition; all in a row: "The episode's alien creatures...The episode is stylistically different...the episode is based on moral ambiguity...The episode features the return of..." What exactly does this "based on moral ambiguity" mean? BuddingJournalist 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to find a wording that doesn't make the character Miss Foster out to be a villain: there's a two page spread in this month's DWM which has several quotes from Sarah Lancashire (one of which is in the article) to the effect that she's Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral (which is a rarity if not non-existant in Doctor Who: since 2005, I can only think of three antagonists that weren't Evil (1 Chaotic Neutral, 2 True Neutral). Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your change ("has no clear antagonist") is clearer to me. BuddingJournalist 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my suggestions are fairly trivial, otherwise it's a great article.
    • in the hope she would find him - "in the hope that"?
    • small white aliens which vs. an alien who - aliens can't be whiches and whos.
    • Tate's return was controversial to Doctor Who fans - "controversial amongst" might be better.
    • It's very, very picky but the infobox refers to a Russell T. Davies, while Casting refers to a Russell T Davies - does the actual episode credit him with a full stop?
    • The scene where Donna and the Doctor investigate Adipose was a "nightmare to film" - who's being quoted?
    • the singular fang each Adipose possessed - maybe a different word as it's a little weird to "possess" a fang.
  • Hope that was useful and again sorry I couldn't help with any in-universe issues. —97198 talk 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "That" would be a redundant word in the article, but I've got no opinion for or against.
      • I think Doctor Who makes the point that the aliens are more human than some humans themselves... the lead character is alien, so the use of "which/who" to "that" would be controversial without thinking about the already existent linguistic dispute. Personally, I'd extend "which" to sapient beings (Fostercertainly is), and "that" to non-sapient (Adipose may be). Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That reply leaves me a little baffled but basically I was saying that the aliens shouldn't be referred to as "which" and "who", they should just use one pronoun - either one. I think maybe you thought I was implying that "that" should be used instead of both. —97198 talk 06:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Was looking for that word.
      • Reworded.
      • Changed to "have". Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, any remaining prose issues are minor can be sorted as this review progresses, so I've just one more issue to broach, and it's going to piss you off, because it's an issue I've been meaning to bring up at FACs for other television episodes, and you've drawn the short straw. It concerns the breadth of coverage of the critical reception section. This seems lengthy enough, and features opinion from a range of viewpoints, but, and I don't mean this to sound quite so harsh, it's tad superficial. By that, I mean it tends to focus more on the superlatives (or otherwise) thrown at the episode by each critic, rather than any deeper analysis. Now, I now this is a borderline kids' show, and the episode is never going to be subject to the kinds of academic papers and analysis I've seen for shows such as The Sopranos; that's certainly not what I'm asking for. But many of the critics which are already cited in the section do go a little deeper in their scrutiny than just saying what they liked or didn't. Most especially, as well as merely saying whether Tate was good or not, several make room for at least a few words on the dynamic between the Doctor and Donna, what this might represent for the show in general, and what changes it might have on the Doctor's character (and to be fair, you already touch on this a little, especially from the perspective of Davies in the Writing section). Other examples include something taken from the first cited review to produce the line that the reviewer "liked the mixture of emotions." It might be better to examine more closely what he actually says about this:

    For all the whizzy special effects, it's an intensely human show which manages to find space for big emotions. Davies doesn't stint on the major chords, but he always ensures a sprinkling of minor ones to lend it texture. So, along with the grand climactic moments and the sheer relish Dr Who takes in time-travel, you also find more subtle things like sadness and regret creeping in round the edges.

    While you might feel something like this would be better placed in the main Who article, or elsewhere, the fact that the reviewer felt the episode adhered closely to these familiar beats of New Who means it's worth lingering on just a little in the article. Now, I wouldn't necessarily like to see these sorts of things included in the same paragraphs as the "superficial" superlatives; if there's enough information, it may even warrant its own subsection, with a dryer tone and fewer direct quotes. But I'll leave that up to you. Again, I'm sorry you've got the brunt of this borderline rant on the subject, and feel free to tell me to bugger off. :) All the best, Steve T • C 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not annoyed at all. I actually try to include a quote or two from the reviewer, and this case can be shown mostly with Billen's review, with the behind-the-sofa quote. Sceptre (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Someone's gone through and sorted the dash issues and non-breaking space issues, so I haven't a lot to complain about now. :) I'd be happy to see this as a Featured Article. It's more comprehensive than a lot of TV episode articles, especially the last one I reviewed for FAC (which was promoted regardless). Nice work. Steve T • C 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to go through and give a copy edit, but it looks fine in terms of sources. I'll switch to support when I'm finished. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "a minor comb" enough to attain a professional standard of writing? I suppose it's OK, but why did I find things like:
  • Comments Generally support, just a few things that could be cleaned up
    • 2nd para of "Writing": "She provides a change in the lead companion's attitude to the Doctor;" this sentence seems a little weird, in that it's not the character, but the writing or characterization of Donna that provides the change. (out-of vs in-universe).
    • In the 3rd para of "Broadcast and ratings", is it necessary to go into details of Grand National and Causality ? It seems like these are added to justify a POV-ish point that Who was the top-watched show that evening.
    • Two points in the reception refer to key scenes in the plot that I believe were in the article before but appropriately trimmed (the two points being Foster's mid-air drop, and the Doctor/Donna window miming bit). It may be worthwhile either to expand on them here (not the best option), or to find a way to just expand the plot a bit more to make these points clearer as to provide the foundation for these statements. (better method)
    • As Freema did not appear in this episode, is it appropriate to include her name as the other cast members in the plot? --MASEM 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done most. Removed the Casualty bit, but not the Grand National bit. With the reception bit, the plot section says the Adipose kill Foster. Added something about it being their first meeting, though. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but as mentioned above, I would prefer the end of the plot section to be sourced. D.M.N. (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I liked the pace and flow of the article. There are no major problems with the prose but I would have prefered to see "family uses" rather than "family use". Getting an article about such a recent episode of Dr Who to this standard in such a short time is quite an achievement. GrahamColmTalk 18:01, 20 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Partners_in_Crime_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1138468734"