Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive3
- 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 User:Sceptre 21:06, 24 August 2008 [1].
previous FAC (00:07, 25 June 2008)
Yes, I'm bringing this back to FAC again. I think the two-month gap and the peer review conducted in the interim have allowed me to improve the prose—the only objection, I think, to the article's status. It is shorter than my usual nominations (which are often around 30KB), but nevertheless, I believe it is comprehensive enough to be a featured article. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
- Image:ToaTL DVD cover.jpg - The source for this image simply says "BBC" - was it scanned by a user? Taken from the web? The source needs to be a bit more specific. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. It was because I substed {{DVD rationale}}, which has no source paramater, into the page. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm saddened to see that there are still many silly errors in the article, ([2]) Although I am happy to copy-edit articles when I have the time and enthusiasm, I don't like this increasing tendency to bring candidates here that are not ready. One does not have to be as talented as Tony to spot these problems. Graham Colm Talk 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, if it's that bad... maybe I should withdraw it, keep working on the prose, and use peer review more. One of the main problems with PR is that it's not as active as it should be... but if, at the end of the day, it'll help, then I think that's the best course to take. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 24 August 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.