Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Torchwood episodes/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

List of Torchwood episodes

Featured list candidates/List of Torchwood episodes/archive1

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood is a British science fiction television programme and spin-off of Doctor Who, centered around former companion Captain Jack Harkness. Consisting of four series broadcast between 2006 and 2011, the programme has garnered a cult following, impressive viewing figures, and wide critical acclaim. Doctor Who itself has several FL's, but I realized that none of the spin-offs did. I've recently cleaned this article up significantly and believe that it would make for a proper addition to Wikipedia's Featured Lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by OlifanofmrTennant

Wikilink Chris Chibnall, Catherine Tregenna, Helen Raynor, and Peter J. Hammond in the series 2 table.
Wikilink Russle T. Davies in the series 3 table
Source the plot summaries
Ref 3 should use Template:Cite press release
There's an extra bracket in ref 28
Attribute ref 29 to Gizmodo

Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Done on everything except the plot summaries. MOS:PLOTSOURCE says "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with inline citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary" which is easily the case here TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead image could probably be made larger
"In its final two series, Torchwood utilized" - as it is a British show, British spellings should be used and therefore the last word should be "utilised"
"The programme moved networks once more " => "The programme moved channels once more" (BBC One/Two/Three are not "networks")
"Subtitled Mircale Day" - second word is spelt incorrectly
"The term was later seeded in that programmes second series" - apostrophe missing in "programme's"
"The show centers" => "The show centres"
"Torchwood specifically centers" => "Torchwood specifically centres"
"around one of these groups, Cardiff's Torchwood Three which" => "around one of these groups, Cardiff's Torchwood Three, which"
"is lead by Captain Jack Harkness" => "is led by Captain Jack Harkness"
"are joined by Rex Matheson and Esther Drummond, an agent and analyst in the Central Intelligence Agency" - is Esther both of those things or are they each one of them?
"Torchwood had a small number of fictional crossovers with Doctor Who" - I don't think the word "fictional" is needed, as we have already established that the shows are fiction
"with an appearances in both a 2020 and 2021 episode" => "with appearances in both 2020 and 2021"
"The first two series of Torchwood were lead" => "The first two series of Torchwood were led"
"Series 1 focuses on Gwen Cooper, her introduction to Torchwood, and meeting Jack Harkness" => "Series 1 focuses on Gwen Cooper, her first meeting with Jack Harkness, and her introduction to Torchwood"
"It also focuses on Jack and Ianto's relationship, as well as Gwen and Rhys." => "It also focuses on Jack and Ianto's relationship, as well as that of Gwen and Rhys."
"Series 4 centres on an event called Miracle Day, where everyone in the world stops dying" => "Series 4 centres on an event called Miracle Day, when everyone in the world stops dying"
"It also focuses on Jack's past, his immortality, as well as" => "It also focuses on Jack's past and his immortality, as well as"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

Why does the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} have alt text? I suspect that was meant to go on the image...
Per MOS:ORDER, the Notes section goes after the See Also section.
Question: Is there a reason we're not using an infobox for this article? I recognize that per MOS:INFOBOXUSE it's not required but this seems to be an excellent candidate to have one.
The link to They Keep Killing Suzie is a circular link and should be removed.
For citations 31-34, is there any way to direct link to the data, rather than a link to a form to fill out?

Minor nit picks, this looks good overall. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrb: I addressed bullet points 1, 2, and 4.

Traditionally, in my experience List of Episode (LoE) pages haven't historically used Infoboxes. Programme pages have Template:Infobox television and season/series articles have Template:Infobox television season, but there's not a specific one for LoE's. I've also brought several of these types of pages to FL before, and the question has never been raised, but if you think it's a problem I could bring it up to the project talk page or something? It's presumably something outside the scope of this single FL.

Regarding the last point, I don't believe so. When the form on that website is filled out, it displays the data without generating a new URL. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Fair enough - that's why I asked questions rather than made statements. If there is not a strong trend toward having infoboxes, then I have no concerns about this list not having one. Same with the URLs, I have no concern as long as the information is cited.

As my other concerns were addressed, I Support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 07:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the ratings for series 2, episodes 6 to 12 combine the BBC 3 and BBC 2 figures, therefore ref 31 which covers BBC 3 figures probably required on that column and does a note need adding to state this to help explain the drop in ratings for the final episode which was a BBC 2 only broadcast. Adding them together I did get marginally different figures for episode 9 of 3.74m (rather than 3.75m) and episode 12 of 3.70m (rather than 3.69m) so these may be worth a double check. JP (Talk) 11:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpeeling: This was handled in a slightly different method. To avoid having data obscured from both an initial broadcast and repeat combined (while the remaining episodes would only be an initial broadcast) I switched the entire table over to use BBC2 data. BBC3 dates and viewing figures are addressed using endnotes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

Source review in progress. One thing I noticed upon starting was that for refs 5 and 7, the access date is given as 1 January 2005, which predates when both of those sources were published. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, they were meant to be 2025. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that – I thought that was the case, and was tempted to fix it myself, but didn't want to assume. Some more comments:

I noticed that some ref titles are in sentence case, while others are in title case. This should be standardized one way or the other across all refs, regardless of how the titles originally appear in the sources.
I'm slightly puzzled that only some refs have archive URLs.
For the sake of consistency with the other refs, I'm not sure if there should be a location field for ref 2.
Wikilinking BBC in refs 3, 14, and 27 wouldn't hurt.
Refs 32, 33, and 34 seem to be duplicates, unless I'm missing something?
Mary McNamara has an article and can be wikilinked in ref 29
I think it would be a good idea to fill out BBC Three (or at least BBC) as the website for each entry in ref 10.
Each source looks reliable enough for the information it's being used to cite.
I did a spot check of twelve refs for source-text integrity: 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 29, 30. Ref 30 is maybe a very slight overstretch because the air dates aren't visible when you click on the link, but I am willing to let it slide because this information is present on each episode's respective page, which all of which are linked to from the cited source.

That's about it, I think! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: These have all been addressed. Ref 32 is housed within this article while 33 and 34 are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why the duplicates exist. Essentially, I can't name the define the ref here and use it elsewhere the same way I can when the same ref is used multiple times within the same article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. I did carry out some minor copyediting while looking the refs over again. Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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