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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 19:53, 12 November 2009 [1].

• Featured article candidates/TARDIS

• Featured article review/TARDIS/archive1

Notified: Khaosworks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

Un-referenced material.

Dead links in refs 6, 36, 38, and others.

The "Popular culture" section has clean-up tags on it.

And, though not sure, some of the pictures maybe unnessessary.

So, all and all, this article has a lot of problems to it and needs a major overhaul. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An issue I see right off the bat is that it assumes too much foreknowledge of Doctor Who—things like Time Lords are not explained, nor the Doctor or much of the show's premise. The third paragraph of the first section is entirely unreferenced and seems to involve some original research (I'm not a Londoner, but a specific figure like 700 boxes in London in the 1960s should be sourced as not common knowledge.) There are several other unreferenced lines scattered throughout the article that I think similarly require citations.

Aside from referencing issues, there's excessive weight given to in-universe explanations and trivial details. I simply don't think 30+KB about every facet of the ship qualifies as summarized and succint coverage as recommended by fiction writing guidelines. Add to the fact that most of it's unreferenced and smacks of original research (for example, the bit on the changing exterior colors) and I'd say much of the article could be plainly gutted. Lots of these issues existed in the original FA version (oldid), but it's simply gotten bloated over the years with cruft. The final sections, rather than providing real-world critical commentary and sources that prove its notability, dissolves into a list of trivia.

Finally, the defensibility of File:Rani TARDIS.jpg, File:JadePagoda.jpg, File:Tinterior1.jpg, File:Tardis Console Circa 1996.jpg, File:Tardisconsole.jpg, File:TARDIS wardrobe.jpg, File:TARDIS Key.jpg, File:Hartnellconsole.jpg and File:Doctor Who - Secondary TARDIS console room.jpg are all amazingly poor. Considering there are free shots that can adequately replace the images of the exterior, one could even argue that there's no reason for a non-free image in this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2009

• Comment on the image issue - yes, some could be removed. However, the interior shots, especially Hartnellconsole and Tardisconsole, are vital to understanding how the depiction of the TARDIS interior has changed over the years, and are extremely unlikely to be replaceable with a free alternative (especially the first, as the set was likely destroyed when the show stopped using it, like most unused sets were. I don't know of any free current interior shots available, either. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Update: I removed the three images with the weakest justification, cutting the number of fair use images by a third. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find a defense of the non-free shots much more reasonable if there were secondary sources and critical coverage about the appearance to prove that it actually mattered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make a do-over on the article to remove the most notable complaints some time this week. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I have personal issues making it not worth my time to edit Wikipedia extensively over the next few weeks. I think it's better to allow the project to start to work on this more once the series comes back next Spring, when we aren't constrained by a time limit. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue I see in scanning the article are general concerns on Writing About Fiction. Some sections, particularly regarding production details, are perfectly well expressed, and are certainly above average for an article on a fictional topic. Other sections, including the lead section, blend a little too seamlessly between real-world aspects and fictional aspects. Most of these issues can be solved without too much trouble by prefixing the paragraph or section to explain the perspective of the content. Other places, the "character development" of the tardis should be expressed in terms of episodes/development schedule, not in-universe or unspecified (weasel) time. If more detail is needed for improvement, I can scrutinize the article more closely, and point to specific places in the article that concern me, but I suspect plenty of editors out there would have no difficulty resolving all the major concerns (which again, aren't too severe) without such help. -Verdatum (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We should have a speedy delist for FAs with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited FA criteria concerns are citations and focus YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per my comments above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Lack of inline citations (main concern), lack of alt text, a bulleted trivia section disguised as "Popular culture", poorly formatted referenced, David's image concerns, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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