Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Harkness/archive1

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 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

Jack Harkness

I've worked a lot on this article, I've given it a whole load of real world context and skimmed the fat so the plot details are not excessive, so that the lead section is thorough but succinct, so that there is no original research or speculation and so that it is cited thoroughly. It's already a good article and has been peer reviewed with little problem.

Anyway, to summarise against the criteria, I believe:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

2. It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.

3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I think it's ready for featured article status.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I think the lead definitely needs some work. "Dark-themed" is not very good writing and it also doesn't really nail the thematic differences between the two series. Lastly, since this character is still alive in two separate series, I don't think a comprehensive and stable article on the topic can be written yet. Best to wait until the whole story has been told, don't you think? —ptk✰fgs 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "completeness" has been a requirement for other featured articles in the past (e.g. Andrew Van De Kamp). The article is stable, everything has been contracted and laid so that new information and appearance can be appended where necessary. I will work on the lead some more, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Aaaaand I've just gave it another major overhaul.23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Comprehensiveness" is required under criterion 1. b., so your assertion "completeness" hasn't been a requirement is false. LuciferMorgan 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is comprehensive, but Doctor Who being ongoing is incomplete.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, something being on going doesn't necessarily mean it isn't comprehensive. I think the article might need a bit more OOU information, but in regards to the fictional information, Lost (TV series) is still on-going, but it's FA.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*Support, regardless of 'completeness' issues. It is comprehensive from what we know so far. As the character is immortal and the Doctor Who series doesn't look likely to end for a very long time, I think opposing on ground of it being 'incomplete' is a bit unfair as by those standards it will never ever be complete :) Not really an actionable reason to oppose.

One comment: "Within his own team, Jack and Ianto are driven to violence, Suzie becomes a serial killer and attempts to kill him and he is forced to kill her, and he faces mutiny and is shot by Owen." I think this sentence goes on for too long. Kamryn · Talk 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawing for the time being, per below. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:

1. All footnotes should be after a punctuation mark. Some are not.
2. "a comedic supporting character" is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere supported in the text. Have I missed something?
3. "Little is known about Jack's youth." opens an entire paragraph about what we know about Jack's youth.
4. The Time Agency is mentioned twice in the first section but it is never explained what it is.
5. You mention several people who are in Torchwood without explaining who they are. in fact this is a major probelm with the entire article. I have only seen the first series of the latest Doctor Who and only two episodes of Torchwood,and as a conseqeuence I have absolutely no idea what most of this article is taking about. Obviously sci-fi series are always difficult to explain concisely without running through the entire history of the series, but you might benefit from printing off this article and either getting someone else to read it or reading it yourself from the perspective of someone who has never seen Doctor Who and highlighting stuff that needs reworking.
6. The "Other Appearances" section may as well be renamed "novelisation" or something similar and expanding. What are the basic plots? Does the Jack in the novels differ from the Jack in the series? Do we learn anything new about him in them whose cononicity is doubtful?
7. Who the hell is Gwen Cooper? Why has she softened Jack?
8. "Jack displays attraction to beings (people, robots[4] and humanoid aliens)[5] which fit into the gender binary of male/female." Thus far. I'm sure Davies will get him to have sex with an other at some point, or he wouldn't have called him "omnisexual".
9. "When battling Abaddon, a Biblical demon who steals life," Ooh, an explanation. Use this as your example.
10. "As a time traveller, Jack is saturated in "artron energy"," So what? What does this do to him?
11. "The Dead Ringers series in which Jack is parodied is noticeably absent of the Doctor Who sketches (parodies of Tom Baker's Fourth Doctor) present in all previous years." Not relevant. Delete.
12. References. Things like names and episodes of people only have to be linked the first time they occur, at the moment it is a rather blinding sea of blue.
13. Alternate your images and quotes between left and right. Nice quotes btw, good and relevant.

Alrighty then, fix those and we'll see what we can do about supporting you. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, you're totally right. I was reading this article from the perspective of someone who's watched a lot of Doctor Who, so everything fell into place for me. But people who haven't watched the show? Not so much. I'd also advise the nom to fix these issues. Kamryn · Talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but we don't actually know what a Time Agent really is, it's just occasionally mentioned, but I will try and give it some context.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Dev, I've taken your edits into account, care to give it another once over?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And done, btw, longtime.  Done 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~

Comment - I've mentioned this before on Zythe's talk page, but does anyone else think the subheadings in the television appearances section are too in-universe? For example, the "Early appearances" heading implies that these were his early appearances in the show when they were in fact simply flashbacks/revelations about his past (maybe change it to "Backstory" or something similar?). I also think that "Leading Torchwood" should be changed to something more specific like "Torchwood Series 1" - if Jack remains leader of Torchwood in future seasons, this section will become huge. Paul730 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific season subheadings could be very problematic, but the character history pretty much only needs to note really eventful things. Nothing like "in episode 2.6, Jack is seen in conversation with Harriet Jones and fights werewolves and then in the denouement kisses an elephant", just important stuff. But yeah, it's OOU now.  Done:)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. :) Paul730 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I invariably find that FACs I have supported are later found to have problems with prose, so I make no guarantees that because I am satisfied, the prose is actually FA standard. I leave that to other people. For me, however, besides being impressed by the speed with which my suggestions were implemented, I am happy to give my conditional support on the basis that the footnotes-after-punctuation issue I previously raised is addressed, "early appearences" be renamed per the above editor, and you remove the "." after the T in Russell T Davies' name - it doesn't actually stand for anything, so he shouldn't have a point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried using AWB to find those citation errors but I can't, if anyone could find them and fix them it would be great. As for the Russel T. Davies thing, isn't the "." part of his name? His article uses the dot. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's wrong. His real name is Russell Davies, he added the "T" to differentiate him from some other guy called Russell Davies. It doesn't actually stand for anything, so it shouldn't have a mark, in the same manner that we don't put periods after people's full middle names, like Joey Lauren Adams. Technically, his middle name is T. From middle name, "In such cases, using a period (full stop) after the "initial" is incorrect, since a period denotes an abbreviation."

Also, to make sure refs come after a punctuation mark, you do not need AWB, you only need eyes. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Image:Cardiff-Bay-01.jpg does not contribute to the article in any significant way. The caption on the image on the article says "Jack leaving the Doctor's company in Doctor Who series three" Why is this significant? It's not mentioned in the article at all, except on the caption. Nothing about the image seems significant enough to warrant inclusion of this fair use image. It depicts the character, nothing more. We already have another image for depiction purposes. This is just decoration. --Durin 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Happy to see it gone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Could we put powers and abilities above characteristics. It's just further IU information that should probably be kept with the rest of the other IU stuff.
    •  Done
  • Is there more literature information? Like, does is only appear in this stuff? Did anything happen in this literature? Was he only briefly mentioned. Did they expand on the character of Jack in a way the show did not?
  • Coincidentally, the 1968 Doctor Who serial The Mind Robber features a character who wrote a series of books titled "The Adventures of Captain Jack Harkaway". - What does this mean? Is it simply pointing out a coincidence in similarities between names that an editor found? If so, coincedences are not relevant without meaning.
    •  Done
  • Can we get more OOU information? Right now, your IU info takes up about half your article, which slightly concerns me. It makes me think we are focusing more on what he does on a show, and less on his impact in the real world. Can we expand the critical reception and impact section? There has to be more out there on him.
    •  Done quite a bit more.
  • Someone might want to check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, for removal of redundancies and ways to tighten up the prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the powers section. As for extra booky info, there's not necessarily a source more for or of any particular note. Filling in any information about the books would be more IU stuff, since the books have to be written as strictly "filler" stuff. Taken out the Harkaway thing, there's no official comment on it. Gonna go sourcehunting for more OOU. Prose? More rewrites to come.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reason I mentioned the literature section is because, if something truly significant happened, then it's ok to mention it. You can get a feel for it at Jabba the Hutt, where the books expand on aspects of the character that the films did not. I say this because I don't want it to appear as though the article cares only for the television show. The television appearances may be able to get tightened up so that they aren't as large. It depends on how you write things (I don't mean trim events and concepts, but sometimes you can merge several events into a nicely written compound sentence that summarizes like-minded events).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I go over that section I find new things to merge. I have four episodes in one sentence towards the end, which I quite like. Anyway, I've expanded the OOU stuff even more and contracted more of the IU.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to go through and clean up your references (i.e. I was removing spaces between words--"cite web | title = Episode X |"-to-> "cite web|title=Episode X|series="...as it's just unnecessary spacing, and also removing fields there were either not filled in...like the city...or remove unnecessary "link" sections that can be done more easily by simply linking the section that says "title" and "series"...no need to have two sections were one will suffice), when I came across a bigger issue that made me stop. I saw the use of episode "Boom Town" twice inside of a couple of the first paragraphs. What caught my attention is that each instance had a different reference name. One used "Boom Town" and the other used "Badwolf" (or something along those lines). The one that used "Boom Town" was even immediately followed by the latter one I mentioned in the same sentence. When I checked the reference section, sure enough, there were two there (#3 and #11). Those are the ones that caught my eye. Might I suggest, as you go through and clean up the references to remove that unnecessary spaces and sections, that you look for duplications like that. I'm not familiar with the show so I probably won't realize I saw an episode title more than once. This time only caught my eye because they happened to be right close to each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, it's fixed. Yes, I'll check the refs over again tomorrow, but I'm tired now. I don't know if the plot section can be reduced anymore, and the only place I could possibly see expanding too much in future, although perhaps the "backstory" section will for a time. The plot section is also quite grounded in reality. The powers section is a notable character trait - even the Superman and Batman FAs have powers/skills sections. The characterization/impact sections are comprehensive with regards to every aspect of the character and are thoroughly sourced. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a and MOS.
  • "openly non-heterosexual". Thanks, I'll call you "openly non-black" or some such, then.
    • There's nothing wrong with that. "Openly bisexual" would suggest the show has had gay characters, and "LGBT" would complicate things with an acronym. I understand there's an implicit heteronormativity to it, but it's a bit of a stretch to find... casual readers may even find substitute terms like "queer" offensive.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We speak English, so why the link for normal words such as "protagonist" and "immortal"? Needs a full audit throughout so that high-value links are not diluted by useless ones.
    • {{done)) Will do.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why pipe-link "2006" to "List of Dr Who serials"—no one will bother clicking on a year, so find a more explicit way of linking it.
    • The link is "2006 series", because "Series 2" is confusing as Doctor Who has had two of those.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, one season; one series. The terminology sets the two productions apart.Aderack 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "appears to lack any extranormal abilities"—Spot the redundant word.
    •  Done It wasn't originally worded that way, will change it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeated references in successive sentences become intrusive in places; e.g., 10, 10, , , 10, 13 10. 10. We get the point. Why not ration the 10 to, say, two positions here? Sometimes fine-grained extactitude becomes a nuisance when we know basically where the information comes from. And what about "Rose Tyler,[7] the Doctor,[7]"—that's ridiculous!
    • Basically, it's done because in some places people are likely to get confused as to what instance is being referred to... but I will trim them out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "At present in the series,"—"At present" means exactly what?
    • As of the latest episode that's shown? It's not saying the character has a present. Will change for clarity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "team-mates"—isn't this one word?
    •  Done Yes, that's a very recent change.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "series 3"—S coz it's a title.
    •  Done K.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots to do. Please don't just fix these samples. Tony 12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Better get a copyeditor in, mate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I listed it for the WP:LoCE.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone who's already given this article some comment like to give it another once over?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it been copyedited? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that to say copyediting is the only adjustment still required? That was the point of my previous question, if that wasn't clear. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly if the only oppose at the moment is Tony. If you haven't got a good copyeditor in yet, find one and then ask the same question. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the sub-subheadings (Introduction/Torchwood onwards) in the "Appearances" section are necessary anymore now that the backstory stuff is gone, especially since he continues to jump between shows. Also, if more OOU info can be found about his immortality (why they made him immortal/how it affects the character), I'd like to see "Powers & abilities" merged into "Characterization". Also, is the sexual orientation subheading really necessary? It seems to break up the article unnecessarliy to focus on something which is essentially just part of his personality anyway. I think the section would be stronger merged into "personality." Paul730 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Powers and abilities has been merged, you're totally right there. However, I feel the sexuality section is rather notable in itself as a character's defining trait which takes up a rather large proportion of the characterization section, and also as it might necessarily need distinguishing from personality (sexual orientation can be a can of worms, not touching it anymore specifically than to say it's best not to lump it together with anything). The television appearances subheadings are also removed, with editors notes' in their place so new editors can understand the layout.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose it is an important section, it just looked a little brief to be an independant subsection, that's all. :) Paul730 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what--Jack's youthful nickname, "the Face of Boe" (the Boeshane Peninsula being his early home),[12] implies that Jack may eventually become the enigmatic Face of Boe — a disembodied, giant head in a jar. Russell T Davies called this scene as presenting "a theory" in the episode commentary for "Last of the Time Lords".[13]--means. It's so out there in the section. Especially the last part about Davies calling it "a theory". It either needs better explaination, or complete removal. I mean, the section is about his appearances, not about some possible change in his appearance later (if ever) in the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• It was such a rawkas at the time, fans demanding it be a three paragraph thing about Jack being the Face of Boe. Placing it in "character history" was a compromise, but since this FAC began it has become an appearances and separate characterisation section. It can't be removed entirely, though. Perhaps integrating it with characterisation along the lines of "Jack's character may evolve further in much later points of his fictional history, with the episode "Last of the Time Lords"[12] promoting a "theory"[13] that Jack may become another recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe — a mysterious, large disembodied head, and friend of the Doctor's." The article would suffer from comprehensiveness issues if the entire concept was omitted.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If "Face of Boe" is some sort of characterization that will take place, then yeah, it would be better there. Instead of being vague about, with a "may evolve", and I would do more of a "'Fill in that guy's name' has stated that Jack could evolve into the "Face of Boe", a mysterious...... 'Same guy's name' explained that "Last of the Time Lords" promited the theory of Jack becoming a different recurring character in the series: the Face of Boe."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Russell T Davies referred to a scene in "Last of the Time Lords" as promoting a theory that Jack's future may involve him become or age into another recurring character in the series -- This is very awkward sounding.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Despite having worked with him for some time, his present-day colleagues know very little about him and Jack is preoccupied with. - Preoccupied with what? Paul730 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. Stray sentence fragment from an old edit I guess.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume it has something to do with finding the Doctor? Maybe it should be mentioned in some way, since Jack's quest to reunite with the Doctor and discover why he was immortal was his main character arc in season 1, before realising in LotTL that his TW friends meant more to him. Paul730 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought it could be, but then with the rewrite that information comes in just before there anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.