Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Torchwood Institute/1

Torchwood Institute

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review

Result: Delist. Per GA issues (see e.g. WP:LEAD and WP:WAF) noted below. Geometry guy 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notices have been left on the article's, the main contributors', and the WikiProjects' talk pages about this reassessment. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing this article for Sweeps and would like to get a community consensus on the article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included several points below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.

The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. It currently does not touch on all of the sections in the article, including the Cultural impact section.
The majority of the article is spent detailing the fictional history of the Institute, but is limited on its creation and cultural impact. This may raise issues of the article being in-universe.
The article briefly touches on the conception, can this be expanded on? For example, take a look at Jason Voorhees, for ideas on expansion. I recognize that there may be limited sources on this topic, but it would be beneficial to look for any other ways of expanding the article.
File:Torchwood cardiff agents.jpg and File:Torchwoodint.jpg are both used in this article. For WP:FILM, non-free images need to cite why they need to be included in the article (to illustrate the text which can be best conveyed through an image, for example) instead of being used for decoration for example. The first image could probably still be used in the article if there was further explanation of the clothing developed by the crew, or the importance of women agents, etc. The second image could probably be argued for inclusion about the effects (the spaceship in the background), how the Institute was designed by the crew, etc.
The cultural impact section has been tagged for expansion since June 2008. Is there any other recent news articles, DVD commentaries, documentaries, etc. that focus on this? Are there toys, other tourist spots, souvenirs, etc.?

For these reasons listed above (mainly point two) I would like to see what others think about the status of the article. I believe that the lead and images can be fixed quickly, but am wondering about the possible in-universe content. This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it over the next few days. I just woke up now, so I'm understandably a little bit tired and can't work on it now :p. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly work on these issues straight away but I am in Mods revision mode at the moment.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history 1879–2006 tends slightly toward proseline when it lists some of the events. This is nothing that can't be cleaned up fairly swiftly by a determined editor though. The article has a lot of strengths. I agree the "Cultural impact" section is a little sparse. I think that if the issues above can be improved upon the article then the article can remain a GA. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Cultural impact subsection is way too short. I agree that most of the article is way too in-universe with a heavy emphasis on summarizing the plot/fictional elements, with not enough discussion from secondary sources on Critical reception, cultural references, production, themes, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]