Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 23:43, 10 August 2010 [1].

Russell T Davies[edit]

Russell T Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, FAC, I've missed you so. Here's someone we should all know about: Russell T Davies, the man who brought back Doctor Who and saved Saturday primetime television—and arguably British television drama. This article has been a long time in the making and, after about a year's work, it's finally ready to go through the featured article process. Thanks go to BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs), whose work on Aaron Sorkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provided a skeleton structure for this article, The JPS (talk · contribs), whose work on Steven Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) inspired me to do the same for this article, and Zythe (talk · contribs), who gave me several tips on how to write the trickiest part: the reception section. This is the first BLP I've taken to FAC; however, I hope that the article is nevertheless exemplary and passes all of our stringent standards. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media File:Russell_T_Davies_on_Play_School.jpg fails WP:NFCC contextual significance (WP:FA Criteria 3), thus the article currently fails FA criteria, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it? We devote a good paragraph to the appearance alone, in the second paragraph of "Children's television career", as well as some text outside detailing his work as an artist for the childrens' department at BBC outside the paragraph. I included the still more because of the second part of the praragraph: the appearance is so infamous that people request the tapes of the performance at a joke at several wrap parties, hence I believe that the performance, or at least, a still from it, would be significant enough for the article. Sceptre (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is very well written and is capable of standing on it's own merits, non-free content is not required to enhance my understanding in this case Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that removal of the image, because of the notability of the performance both in context and in the industry—a full paragraph about just one presenting job on one children's TV show nearly 25 years ago!—would have a small detrimental effect to the supporting paragraph. If possible, I'd like to gauge others' opinions on the subject matter to see if there's a consensus either way on whether it passes the NFCC. If there isn't any feedback from other editors supporting the inclusion of the image in the next couple of days, I'll remove it. Sceptre (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 inappropriate use of non-free content (drop a note on my talk page if things change)Fasach Nua (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, don't you think that's a little immature? I'm trying to compromise on an issue where the NFCC is infamously vague, and there was no call to oppose this candidacy so quickly with that offer on the table. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA Criteria 3 Pending further feedback Fasach Nua (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the use of the image meets the criteria so you have my support Sceptre. Cavie78 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Fasach: while it's not as many outside opinions as I hoped, I'll keep the image on the page unless I get some more opposition to it. However, I will solicit opinions from people known for very strict compliance of the rules :). Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is immaturity. I'm bending over backwards to try and find a consensus regarding this image. I even left Scott Mac a message asking for his opinion. If it'll please you, I'll get rid of it, but I'm unhappy about the way I've been forced to do it. In future, you should take image disputes regarding an image used solely on one article to FFD. Sceptre (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Page ranges require pp, not p (see refs 4 to 8, possibly others)
  • Refs 151 and 154 Publisher information appears to be lacking.
  • In general the sources look OK. Content reviewers may wish to comment on the possible over-dependence on one source, Aldridge and Murray, which is cited over 150 times, around two-thirds of the total. This is not necessarily a problem, but should I think be noted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges fixed.
  • ABHoTT is, technically, a self-published source. However, it cites its sources itself, is among the websites the BBC acknowledges as an exemplary website wrt Doctor Who (e.g. [2]), and has been used in previous FACs without question (e.g. The Stolen Earth). In addition, I'm only citing the Appreciation Index figures for the two stories given. I do have access to Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #20, which verifies Sullivan's figures across the board for the fourth series, at least. I could change the second source to DWM if you object to it; however, I haven't found a source for the "Love and Monsters" rating other than Sullivan.
  • I'm going to come clean and admit that I did use the source almost exclusively up until the Writer's Tale section. It was the only book I could find detailing Davies' career before Doctor Who. Books about Doctor Who tend to skimp on details about the producers in favour of the show. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've looked at the Lead and Early life and youth career so far. I think that this is a very interesting article and quite well written. However, the length is an issue and there are a few other points. I feel the article may benefit from a copy-edit as well.

  • The article seems very long, which leads me to wonder if all the details in these sections are necessary. For example, the details about his mother and school seem to be overdone. My personal opinion is that, while interesting, I'm not sure it is relevant given that he is notable as a writer and producer.
  • Is it necessary to describe him as a "gay Welsh television producer"? It seems to be shoe-horned in; the fact that he comes from Wales explains that he is Welsh, and while his sexuality is relevant to his work, the information emerges in the rest of the lead. It should be changed, even if for no other reason than it does not read well in the first sentence.
  • "Davies was succeeded as executive producer by screenwriter Steven Moffat and is currently living in Los Angeles, California." I don't think the identity of the next producer of Doctor Who is necessary in an article on Davies in the lead.
  • I think the lead is over-linked, especially the third paragraph.
  • "At the same time, Davies started exploring his sexuality, eventually coming out as gay in his teenage years." Surely this should wait until you reach his teenage years, as it seems as if he has come out already when you read about his school days.
  • The primary school section is far too detailed and reads like a school report.
  • "The group allowed Davies to define his own sexual identity..." I'm not sure what this means.
    • The stuff about his early life does prove important, either sooner or later. His mother being on the morphine drip led to an inspiration to write, watching television all the time led to his quest to return Who to the airwaves, the Olchfa school building being closed inspired Dark Season, et cetera. It'd be less confusing for a reader to know about the inspirations early on than run headlong into it later in the article and not know where it came from.
    • I admit it does look strange having "gay" and "Welsh" next to each other. I'd prefer "gay" over "Welsh", but it'd break the precedent of including the nationality. I'll probably take cues from Ian McKellen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on this and let it flow.
    • Removed the mention of Moffat.
    • Removed some extraneous links in the lead.
    • See bullet point below.
    • I only mention the primary school once, as it's not important. I think the confusion stems from my use of "first year", which is a British expression for the first year of secondary school.
The part which includes "In his first year, the main school buildings..." should also specify secondary school to avoid confusion.
  • While appreciating the points you make above, I still believe that the article is too long and too detailed. The article contains 65k of prose and comes in at over 10,000 words. And of the sections I've read so far, I find the information about his school years to go into too much depth. I do not feel it is necessary, for example, to list plays he performed in or scripts he wrote at school. Nor do I consider it necessary to mention the fact that he didn't have a rugby career. But that is just my opinion.
  • Not sure what "At the same time, Davies started exploring his sexuality..." means.
  • With regard to the comment on using Aldridge and Murray, the article does rely on this a lot. Are there any other sources which could be used, such as interviews? I think it needs at least some others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Well, I'll have a look to see what I can excise when I can.
    I would've thought it was obvious: teenagers sexually experiment. They always have done, always will do.
    There 'are, but nearly all of them of note were used by the book itself. Sceptre (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've removed quite a bit about Olchfa, but I've kept most of the stuff about the WGYT. I'm finding it hard to see places where I could cut content, to be honest: his important shows pre-Who have, at the most, four paragraphs, and even then I think I'm skimping on a bit of the detail. It might be because I feel that it's not enough to just list what he wrote: you need to give some context to each series, hence why I use {{see also}}, not {{Main}}), and given the amount of projects Davies has done, you don't want a reader going to a dozen different articles, most of them undeveloped, for information that really should be in the article about the writer. They're all part of the same thing, y'know? Man writes story, you want to know what the story's about. Same man writes roles, you want to write about who the roles were written for, the characterisation, et cetera. Man's TV show goes on the air, you want to know how well it did: and, for everything from 1994 onwards, except for Casanova and Who, those metrics are viewers and awards. In short, I treat each show, as well as I can, like I'd treat the lead sections of each episode article I write: one paragraph for the plot, one for the writing, sometimes one for the cast, and one for the reception. It's a formula that's worked well in the past and I think works somewhat well in this article, even if it does make the article long. Sceptre (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I have to agree with Sarastrol above; the article is overly long and quite a bear to slog through. While I understand the editorial need to introduce, describe and connect an individual's works with their personal life (having written a few literary bios), but the article isn't titled Productions by Russell T Davies for a reason. ;) A lot of the more detailed info that doesn't deal with Davies directly or indirectly can be cut, or else moved to the separate articles. Some specific comments/suggestions:
  • A few days ago, I removed both "is a gay Welsh television producer" from the lead, and the improper use of ellipses in "Early life and youth career". Both were quickly reinstated, which unfortunately turned me off of copy-editing the rest of the article. Since then, I'm glad to see that "gay" has been removed per MOS:BIO, but the ellipsis is still there and incorrectly used per WP:ELLIPSES. Please fix this.
  • There is no reason to list the chapter titles in the shorthand citations; specific page numbers are used for that very reason.
  • Davies was a childhood fan of comic books, television, and literature, and aspired to work as a full time comic artist in his adult life -- what child (who isn't Amish) isn't a fan of television? Also, the first part of this sentence, before "aspired", is over detailed for the lead. A few other examples exist throughout, including "was persuaded to study English literature" (change to "initially studied English literature"? the fact that he was advised to study English takes too long to explain here), and the entire sentence beginning "the short-lived soap opera Revelations deconstructed organised religion..." -- this info merely restates what is already said, and detracts from the subject of the article: Davies.
  • I see quite a bit of redundancy and repetition in the prose. "Davies" in particular is overused, appearing in every single sentence in the lead, and many, many times later in the article -- it's fairly clear who the article is about by now! Also watch repeated phrases, such as here: "Davies' tenure as executive producer of the show oversaw a surge in popularity in the show that led to the production of two spin-offs".
  • In his first year, the main school buildings had been closed off for renovation after inspectors discovered the cement used in construction caused other public buildings to collapse. -- "had been" (past perfect) is incorrect here, as I'm guessing that the buildings were closed in his first year.
  • Davies also made the decision in his teenage years to study literature after being convinced by a careers advisor at Olchfa not to pursue a career as comics artist because of Davies' colourblindness. -- This is interesting, but very clumsy. Needs rewording to better reflect the how and why.
  • In 1985, a friend of Davies suggested that he should talk to a producer for the children's show Why Don't You...?—who was seeking a temporary graphic artist—, which begun his professional career in television. -- The "who" should refer to the producer, not the show; the comma is also out of place.

I've only reviewed the first few sections, but I think the article could use a thorough copy-edit from an uninvolved editor or two. Some culling, per the previous comments made here, would also help tighten the article. I'll be glad to take another look once more work has been done. María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on most of the points listed. I'm going to look at cutting down the Davieses to around one or two per paragraph at the most—I think too many "he"s or "him"s look unseemly—and try and find places where I can cut down on content without sacrificing too much detail. Sceptre (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on chapter names: as page numbers sometimes change between printings—for example, The Writer's Tale has different page numbers in the original version than in the updated version because the latter excises a lot of the draft scripts from the former—I put the chapter names as a guide. Admittedly, I could just do with chapter numbers, but even then, I think the chapter numbers slightly change in The Writer's Tale where the original ends and the new content starts. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See how you've listed all of the bibliographic information under "References"? That's awesome, and it's there for a reason; there is no way for readers/researchers to mix up various editions of books or even journal articles if the specific edition you used is listed and easily located with a simple click. Therefore, chapter titles are not necessary, and only gunk the place up. Keep them if you want, but they're superfluous.
Also, I don't think your Harvard refs are working. When I click on "Aldridge & Murray 2008" and other links under "Citations", nothing happens. Isn't it supposed to link to the bibliography? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Mind you, it doesn't really impact too much on the article, and it's the way I've always done them (blame the documentation for the citation templates). I've fixed the Harvard referneces too; I forgot to set a parameter in the bibliography. Also, I've done a sweep for extraneous "Davies"es and cut down a kilobyte on prose. Sceptre (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are quite a few redirects that no longer link to any section in the article. — Dispenser 04:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I'll go through links to the article to change any wayward links... Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "one of his first memories, at the age of three, was watching the First Doctor's (William Hartnell) regeneration into the Second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) at the end of The Tenth Planet." It's a nice detail, but there's no way to explain to those not familiar with Who what regeneration is, so I'd say just stub it down to saying he remembered watching X episode of Doctor Who.
    • I'm not sure of the utility of Davies' colorful explanation of his mother's psychosis. I think cutting it out and getting on with the tale is better reading (especially since I'm not sure what the lines after really mean. Was the couple in danger of losing the child before the intervention?)
    • Since this is such a large article, I think streamlining some sections would improve flow and readability. There are lots of small details that don't really seem to have much importance to his career building, for example the long mention of Welsh language dramas.
    • " In 1984, Davies performed one last time for the WGYT and came out to his parents shortly after his graduation from Oxford." Already had a mention of his sexuality and that he came out, so it's repetitious to bring it up again in this way.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, David. Let me go quickly through your points.
    • I've moved that into the Doctor Who section, where it makes more sense.
    • Removed the quote and streamlined the paragraph. I agree it that it was somewhat extraneous.
    • I'm more inclined to keeping the dramas as they were his first proper works.
    • Reworked the sentence and the following one.
    I'll have a look further down in the article to find some places to streamline. Sceptre (talk) 17:30, 10 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russell_T_Davies/archive1&oldid=1044081272"