Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek/archive2 - Wikipedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 22:26, 17 April 2010 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
FA from 2005, has some 1c issues, and some copyediting needs and specifically a few too many short paragraphs/sections. A bit too many non-free images claimed under fair-use. 10 images total are used in the article, of which 8 are used under a fair-use claim. The majority of these do not satisfy WP:NFCC#1, and could be described in text without the need for all the claims of fair-use images. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support demoting it for prose and possibly fair use issues; they're too much to fix over a FAR period (especially as most of the project are busy over The End of Time, or are preparing for exams, like myself). Sceptre (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article certainly needs a good bit of work, but no need to bypass the usual FAR process. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when it gets to the actual review of the status, that would be my argument. Or it would have been; now that Josiah's doing a lot of work towards keeping its featured status, I'll check on it when it comes to the review of the status. Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started work on the missing citations, and will continue later. I'm happy to work with FA experts on whatever else needs improvement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only been three years since the previous FAR; have standards (or the article) really changed that much in that time? I'm willing to do some work on the article if someone else can point out specifically where the problem areas are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daleks appearence.jpg should be deleted. The free-use image File:DALEK.jpg shows exactly the same design and appearance, hence the fair-use rationale does not apply and is not valid. "Low resolution" does not apply to File:Dalekattack.jpg and File:Remembranceofthedaleks.jpg, if these images are kept then I think they should be reduced so that at least one dimension is 300 px or less. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: File:Daleks appearence.jpg has been restored, since File:DALEK.jpg is under discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 6#File:DALEK.jpg. I'd forgotten that photographs of copyrighted 3D works can't be considered free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see. In that case we can only show either one or the other (which is currently done), since both show the same design, and if we show both then we do not meet NFCC#3 "minimal usage". DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: File:Daleks appearence.jpg has been restored, since File:DALEK.jpg is under discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 6#File:DALEK.jpg. I'd forgotten that photographs of copyrighted 3D works can't be considered free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've started to add alt text to the images; please let me know if the description for the first image is too detailed. After the description of a Dalek in the alt text for the first image, is it OK to say "a Dalek doing such-and-such" in subsequent alt text? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've now written alt text for all the images. I'd appreciate it if someone more familiar with the conventions of alt text could review them to make sure I've not gone into excessive detail or left any key visual information out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; it looks good. The alt text entries for File:Radio Times Vote Dalek cover.jpg and File:Dalekattackgame.jpg are pretty long, and you might consider copying them to their respective file pages and then abbreviating them somewhat (see WP:ALT#Brevity), but this isn't urgent. Eubulides (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed File:Dalekattackgame.jpg from the article, per discussions here and on the talk page that there were too many nonfree images used there; and I've abridged the alt text for File:Radio Times Vote Dalek cover.jpg. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; it looks good. The alt text entries for File:Radio Times Vote Dalek cover.jpg and File:Dalekattackgame.jpg are pretty long, and you might consider copying them to their respective file pages and then abbreviating them somewhat (see WP:ALT#Brevity), but this isn't urgent. Eubulides (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, incomplete/inconsistently formatted citations, copyright YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Time permitting, I will continue to work on the citation issues. What copyright concerns still remain? The images which might be used to replace the non-free images are under deletion discussion at Commons here and here (and have been since mid-January; a Commons admin is needed to close the discussion). My opinion is that there are no suitable free images which can replace the copyrighted images used in the article, and thus the copyrighted images meet the minimal use and FA requirements. (Note that some nonfree images have been removed from the article since the FAR process began.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Still remaining citation issues. Check the linkchecker for dead links and inactive links. I see lots of one-sentence paragraphs and very short paragraphs. These should be merged together into larger paragraphs, or removed. I also see lots of non-noteworthy trivia listed in one-sentence paragraphs simply as fancruft because it has something to do with the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, trivia, short paragraphs, citation formatting issues, poor referencing concerns. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold - Doesn't look so bad to me. Let's give Josiah some time to address the remaining issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: The entire article really needs to be slimmed down; the quasiparagraphs to me are evidence that many subsections aren't really that important and could be cut to a single mention elsewhere or less. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I'm continuing to work on this as time permits. I've fixed the worst of the citation problems, and will continue to go through the article to make sure that the formatting is consistent. As for the "quasiparagraphs" and the agglomeration of tangentially related material (which is mostly in the "Other appearances" section), I plan to address those after I finish going through the citations. I know that I've been slow on this, and that the FAR has been open for quite a while; I thank the reviewers for not closing it yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further update: OK, the citations are finally all finished, checked and polished (so that things like date formats are consistent throughout). I've also made a first attempt at dealing with the "quasiparagraphs" and extraneous trivia. I'd be interested in feedback from any FA reviewers on what further trims should be made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems as if some of the one-sentence-paragraphs were just smushed together in some places. Also, the Daleks have been used in political cartoons to caricature: is just a list, with no analysis. This could be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still lots of one/two-sentence groupings, and as Cirt mentions, there's a lack of flow in some of the merged content. There's been excellent work made on addressing the involved issues, but my main concern still remains that large sections of content are trivial. The article is 700 words longer than it was at last FAR, and not in a good way. We've got almost 300 words on whether or not they can fly up stairs. My suggestion is that anything that cannot be cited to a secondary source be cut and then very selectively re-added, because I think it's this use of primary sources that is contributing to much of the bloat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that if I had the time I could find plenty of secondary sources discussing the Daleks' ability to go up stairs. But I've had much less time in the past few weeks than I'd hoped. If anyone else is interested in trimming this fat, please have at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still lots of one/two-sentence groupings, and as Cirt mentions, there's a lack of flow in some of the merged content. There's been excellent work made on addressing the involved issues, but my main concern still remains that large sections of content are trivial. The article is 700 words longer than it was at last FAR, and not in a good way. We've got almost 300 words on whether or not they can fly up stairs. My suggestion is that anything that cannot be cited to a secondary source be cut and then very selectively re-added, because I think it's this use of primary sources that is contributing to much of the bloat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EXTERMINATE!... Sorry, had to say it. Delist as a very bloated, fancrufty article. I agree 110% with David Fuchs' excellent analysis of the high level of trivia in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My time has not allowed me to perform the pruning that it seems may be required. I invite any other interested editors to take an axe to the article, if they are so inclined. If the presence of trivia is the only thing standing in the way of this article retaining its star, it seems to me that it should be possible to save it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist because of OR in the "Dalek culture" section. Individual videos of episodes are cited to prove that Daleks are typically evil etc. Examples from primary sources are synthesised and weighed up and summarised to reach conclusions. In the historical development section more than half is about what happened in the last five years, so undue weight. Inconsistency in BBC1 <->BBC One, surname-forename and forename-surname, italicisation of episodes not consistent YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — for what (little) it's worth, some of the apparent inconsistencies noted here are actually correct. For example, italics are used for multi-episode serials, while quotation marks are used for individual episodes, as per the manual of style. Similarly, our article on BBC One indicates that the station's official name was "BBC1" from 1964 to 1997, whereupon it was changed to "BBC One".
But these are minor concerns compared to the OR and WP:WEIGHT issues, which are legitimate problems I don't have time to address at the moment. Perhaps I or other project members will be able to attempt a full rewrite and resubmit the article for FA consideration later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — for what (little) it's worth, some of the apparent inconsistencies noted here are actually correct. For example, italics are used for multi-episode serials, while quotation marks are used for individual episodes, as per the manual of style. Similarly, our article on BBC One indicates that the station's official name was "BBC1" from 1964 to 1997, whereupon it was changed to "BBC One".
- Fair enough about the presentation issues YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although it appears from the votes above that the article might well be delisted, I have pinged Sceptre one last time to see if he or other project members have the time/interest to finish work on the article. I am not delisting at this time due to a hope that the article will be able to be improved and kept, but if further work is not completed by the next round of archiving (most likely next Tuesday), then the article will probably be delisted. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.