Tardis talk:Feature Article nominations

Match 2011
With the sad new of Nicholas Courtney at the end of February 2011, the article on him became the featured article, and like I said was at the end of February 2011. I feel this article should continue to be the featured article for March, and then we pick up worth put feature article nominations with April. All March nominees and votes should go to July. Is this agreeable, or do people want to go ahead with the March nominees? Mini-mitch\talk 22:07, March 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, or we could just push all of the articles down a month, as July has a nomination already, so to keep things fair the March nominations need to go to a month that doesn't currently have any nominations. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:04, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've put all nomination from March to June back 1 month. We'll continue as normal from the beginning of April. Mini-mitch\talk 17:05, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen
With the very sad news of Elisabeth Sladen death. I would like to vote and say we make her article the feature article for May, and have Sarah Jane Smith as the feature article for the rest of April, as a way of remembering her. All votes should be pushed back another month. Mini-mitch\talk 20:21, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yep I completely agree, as a mark of respect we should make her our featured article. --Revan\Talk 20:22, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone else change it? I've no idea how to. Mini-mitch\talk 20:24, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. I'll do it.Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:24, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I think the nominations would work better if there was more discussion. At the moment it seems to much like anything goes. For example, users would list improvements to get it up to "featured" standard.-- 16:26, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Feature articles for remainder of 2011
Okay, here admins, can set forward there recommendations for articles to be featured for the remainder of the year. So, without further ado, ideas?-- 15:54, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * So we decide the articles for the Feature articles while we rewrite the Feature article policy? If we have to decide on articles, I would nominate the following:


 * The Invisible Enemy, since it was the first classic episode and in fact the first ever episode to feature K9.
 * Weevils (or Janet), since they are featured and at some points played a key role throughout the first and second series of Torchwood
 * Justin Richards, for his large collection of published works.
 * Malohkeh, simply cause he's cool. MM/ Want to talk? 16:36, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Just to analyse your suggestions: I don't think The Invisible Enemy is a great article. The image for Weevil needs changing, but beyond that it's good. Justin Richards has barely any content beyond the list of his (rather fantastic) works. Malohkeh and Janet are good articles, if a little typical. Erm...bit too critical?

Here are my suggestions:


 * The Curious Tale of Spring-Heeled Jack - another story page, but at least it's in the comic medium.
 * Inter-Galactic Cat - same as above, but a short story from the annuals.
 * Metebelis III - something a bit different. Might need a bit of polish here and there so would be best later on in the year.

That's it, pick them apart at will.-- 16:57, August 19, 2011 (UTC) Okay, my theory is that each one of the articles for the next six months should each be different from one another.


 * That means only one story article during this period. And frankly, I think we don't need to look any further than Inter-Galactic Cat.  It's quirky, it's fun, it's redlink free, it's the kind of story we haven't usually featured. I got nothin' but admiration for that choice.  I therefore think that disqualifies The Invisible Enemy.  I freakin' love this choice.


 * I like the direction of Justin Richards, but I hate the article. Once ya get outta the gate, it's just one big list.  And frankly, I don't think a bibliography should be handled with simple sections; it should be done with tables.  So I don't want to feature an article with such a fundamental error of layout and design.  If the article would be "table-ised", as at, say Mike Tucker or Mark Gatiss, then it'd be worth another look, because Richards, the man, certainly deserves a pride of place amongst DW authors.  Actually, come to think of it, Mark Gatiss wouldn't be a bad choice for September, since his episode will be airing that month, and the article is ready to go.


 * I really do want to get a terminology article into play, since we've never featured such a thing before. The obvious candidate is missing episode, as it's the longest thing in that category, it's got a pic (in the middle of the page, mind), some nice table work, proper footnoting, and external linkage.  Another possibility is in-vision commentary, which would demonstrate to users how to do a multi-coloured table, and has a nice, strong picture.  It's short, yes, but it covers the subject economically.  Another one I like in the "shorter" range is Quantel Paintbox.  That longer photo would be interesting on the front page as an interesting contrast.  So, anyway — one of those three in the terminology category.


 * I like where we're going with Weevil, but I don't think that's the species article we want. The subject's okay, and maybe with a rewrite I'd look at it again.  But I just don't like that each graf is a sentence long.  That sort of choppy style is a bulletised list without the bullets.  We need something better.  I've just spent some time looking for a species to recommend . . . and it's hard work.  Horse is pretty cool, but it's all in present tense.  That could fun if fixed up.  At some point we really should feature an article on a bog-standard domesticated animal.  Cat might be good; it's pretty complete, but again there are problems of tense.  Catkind seems a nice, complete article.   It's all in the right tense; the grafs are of reasonable size;  it's seems to draw nicely from non-televised sources; and it's got good illustrations.  But though that's an interesting standard, I think I might plump for Alvarian space wyrm as being a good example of a smaller article.  I'd also throw in fairy as a plump lead, an arresting pic and language that's, at worst, one polish away from being clear.


 * I like the thought of Metebelis III, but there's no picture of the planet with the article. And that's a minimum qualification for a featured article.  Another big problem with the article is that it lists lots of other stories, but basically only gives us details from Planet of the Spiders.  In some ways that's natural, given that's the only televised appearance of the planet, but the infobox and categories still promise rather more than the article delivers.  Might I suggest Vortis as a better planetary example?


 * Malokeh is certainly a nice idea, but I don't like the brevity of the lead. I want a little more to draw me into a featured article.  And Janet suffers from the same choppy style of Weevil.

I'd suggest alternatives for the "individual" category, but I've already given more than five recommendations.

So, just to recap, I'd go with;
 * Mark Gatiss for September
 * Quantel Paintbox (or in-vision commentary or missing episode) for October
 * Alvarian space wyrm (or Catkind or fairy) for November
 * Inter-Galactic Cat as a nice, holiday stocking stuffer, just like annuals actually are.
 * Vortis for January

Then we resume normal user participation in February, giving us plenty of time to sort out the new way of doing things  00:42:04 Sat 20 Aug 2011 Ah, some nice choices. Mark Gatiss is a good article and the connection with that point in the series makes it all the better. I'd go with missing episode over the paintbox though, and are you sure Alvarian space wyrm is the sort of length a featured articles should be?

I like your placement of Inter-Galactic Cat at December and completely agree on the Vortis front, that's a fantastic article. Of course, the ones that are to be featured later in the year can easily be given some polish if needed. I did like the idea of horse, so I went over there and made it past tense. However, I also ended up adding templates to a couple of lines I really doubt have ever been rectified.-- 09:34, August 20, 2011 (UTC) Well, it's a quandry really about short articles. We have a ton of short articles which will never get any longer than they are. And a part of me feels that we should hold them up as a good example. On the other hand, I guess we don't want the paragraph we use on the front page to be the sum total of the article. We do want to give readers a reason to click on "read more". Here's a thought. The picture at fairy is so arresting, even at small sizes, that maybe we should make that the October (which is to say Halloween) image, and then bump missing episode to November, since that's the month we typically think of the 1960s in Doctor Who history. 16:36:26 Sat 20 Aug 2011 Not sure what Fairies have to do with Halloween, but I agree on the November-60s front. Wikipedia has the "Good article" stamp for smaller articles of a high quality, but I'm not sure exactly what their cut-off point is.-- 16:48, August 20, 2011 (UTC) Mark Gatiss is good choice. To suggest an different article I'd suggest Lawrence Miles as he's often held up as the 'alternative POV' in some discussions, the article is quote heavy, which I think gives it a different style to many others.

Missing episode is also good sound article, but it's supremely lacking in sources, aside from two very late in the article, it's not a failing as such, but I'm a bit obsessive about sources.

I'm suggesting Nimon for the species article. It covers a nice range of topics and most of the links away from it are fully featured articles.

For an article which isn't a story article, how about an Exhibition article any of these Doctor Who Exhibition (Longleat), Doctor Who USA Tour, Doctor Who Experience (London/Cardiff). Writing these articles I found their history to be pretty interesting, they've also all got photos. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:42, August 20, 2011 (UTC) So, from what I gather, your saying that we should switch Alvarian space wyrm out in favour of Nimon? Or are you just putting your suggestions forward? Mmm...we might have to reconsider missing episode then, unless anyone fancies improving it.-- 18:04, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just throwing in ideas. Nimon is a lengthier article than the space wyrm, but the space wyrm is from a non-TV source which is always good (though Nimon does have sources from non-TV also).
 * Lack of sources isn't as I said a failing of the article, it's not something we really heavily enforce (unlike say Wikipedia, who seem to love the [citation needed] tag). To take a prominent article; Doctor Who is a well written interesting article, which has even less sources than the missing episode article. So I don't think its lack of sources should count against it, unless we're being really picky. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:12, August 22, 2011 (UTC)