Talk:The Angels Take Manhattan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of this one. I'm not a Doctor Who fan per se, but a lot of my friends are, so I have enough working knowledge by osmosis to get by.

Review

Well-written - I'm not quite familiar with what Wiki's fiction guidelines say on the matter, but are you supposed to refer to characters by first name? It's ok in any case to refer to "Amy" and "Rory" to avoid confusion, but if this was a non-fiction article you'd be writing "Song" instead of "River" all the time.
- Yes, as far as I've read, fictional characters are called whatever name they are typically referred to in the series/episode. River mostly (if not always) always called "River" in this episode. 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some clarification needed in the plot summary: the change from "Statue of Liberty" to "Statue of Liberty Angel" happens seemingly out of the blue, River Song is explained as having been Malone in the book which could use some elaboration, no explanation of what the TARDIS is (I know what it is and so do you, but not everyone does; something simple like "the Doctor's time machine the TARDIS" would suffice).

Tried to clarify these. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue and TARDIS changes are great, but the bit about Malone/River Song is still unclear. I take it the episode shows scenes from the story in the book, and at some point Malone is revealed to be Song? Or is there another approach the episode takes? I'm certain this all makes sense if I were to actually watch the episode, so the lack of clarity is not necessarily your fault . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nothing is shown of the scenes the Doctor reads aloud of the book (it's not much), but when Rory starts appearing in the passages he's reading, it cuts back to Rory, who is in the 30s and face-to-face with River. He says, "You're Melody?" Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about you rephrase it to say "Rory, meanwhile, has been sent back in time to the 1930s by a cherub Weeping Angel where he meets Melody Malone, who is revealed to be his daughter River Song"? Would that rewording accurately reflect the event as depicted in the episode? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try working that note about the episode's continuity somewhere else so you don't have a stubby short subsection lying around.

Just deleted it; there is nothing really important and it's pretty much all worked in to the plot section. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Doctor is reading to Amy from a pulp novel about a detective" could be simplified and made more direct. In "In the meantime Grayle has shown River a damaged Weeping Angel and allowed it to grab her wrist to interrogate her about the Angels", it's unclear who allowed the Angel to grab whose wrist (only later do I figure out it's River Song). The sentence "Through rewrites he went back and forth decided whether or not they should live or die" is confusing and possibly missing words. Some slight clarification could be done to make the article better accessible to unfamiliar readers (someone who knows little to nothing about the show might be wondering what's with this series revival business, or why the link to the series protagonist leads to Eleventh Doctor; also, Amy and Rory are married, right?).

Did what I deemed fit. You can bring things up again if you have questions. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akin to my confusion about Malone/River, I assume having the Angel touch River ties into some special ability the creature possesses that's been established by previous episodes? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually not. Typically, it's established that when the Angels touch you, you are sent back in time (like Rory was at the beginning of the episode). Why this is an exception is not explained, at least in the final product. I'm surprised it wasn't singularly mentioned by the reviews as an example of an inconsistancy. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

The only reference I see that's questionable is the Twitter cite. See if you can find the same info reported by a secondary source.

I believe it is mentioned in here, but I've been having trouble with that site recently and can't get it to load so I can properly cite it. I will when it allows me (unless you can , if it works for you). It is possible that they are copying from the Twitter announcement, which is at any rate a primary source from Chibnall. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cite for the announcement of the Ponds' departure doesn't actually mention the date Moffat made it. However, it does mention he made it during the screen of "the Christmas episode", of which I am sure there have been more than one of in the past. See if you can find a clearer source. If not, you can discard the dating in the sentence and it'd still work fine.

I was going by the date published; it is a BBC source, so this was the official BBC announcement and the time he let the public know. I also said just "December 2011" to allow for it being made the day before published, etc. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of the episode was filmed in Central Park in New York City in April 2012". Not quite what the source says; it merely says that they filmed there. Could rephrase or swap out for another source.

I was going by the published date again. I added another source anyway. I also found a source which mentioned a few other locations in NY, and added it. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other scenes were shot at night in the city, involving old-fashioned cars". The source itself has barely any words and is mostly pictures. I'm sort of iffy on this, but could let it slide. Maybe ditch the "old-fashioned" description unless you find a source that describes the cars as such.

Again, I'm unable to view this site, so I can't see what it says exactly to make necessary changes. Pending for now. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This marks the second time Doctor Who has filmed principal photography in the United States, the first being the opening sixth series episodes "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon"". As the source is from two years ago and is mainly being used to verify that "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon" were the first filmed in the US, it doesn't verify that "The Angels Take Manhattan" is the second. It'd just take the entire sentence out.

Done. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cite used to verify that parts of the episode were filmed in Bristol is pretty vague on the matter. I see "some of the series seven action was shot at Bristol University’s School of Physics and the Institute for Advanced Studies" and "Filming is also understood to have taken place in Tyntesfield in Wraxall, and Portland Square", but no mention of this specific episode. The io9 cite for filming in Llanelli (just three pictures of a cemetary, no details about location) is also unclear. Give the Radio Times cite following it confirms filming in Llanelli, just remove that io9 cite.

Agreeing on that. The Bristol thing is a case of someone playing "spot the location" and failing to find a reliable reference. From what I can gather from fansites, it seems that what was shot there was just stairwells; nothing significant. I removed it. I also kept the io9 source in addition to RT just because it has picture evidence and provides further support. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage - Any information about airings in other countries, namely the US?
- I mentioned the US airing ([1] - by "air date" it does mean in the US, as evidenced by series 5 episodes having different than UK airdates), but the ratings aren't reported for BBCA unless they break records or are significant airings like premieres or Christmas specials (which has probably been about 7 episodes in the past few years). Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's some articles from Entertainment Weekly which might be of use: [2], [3], [4]. That was done with a real quick search, so you might try digging for more. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added the second one. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can remove the BBC America cite for the date now, then, as you only need to cite a fact once, and it's preferable to rely on a secondary source (Entertainment Weekly) than a primary one (the website of the network that aired the program). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - No issues

Stable - No issues

Illustrations - Image checks out

Assessment pending while I get around to double-checking the refs, but looking rather good so far. In the meantime, tackle the prose issues and address the coverage query and you should be in good shape. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on the references above. Also, any word on broadcast information outside of the UK? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue right now is the SFX website loading; otherwise I believe I've fixed everything. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think it's all set now. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USERG, you should probably remove the Twitter link entirely, as Chibnall is not discussing himself in the tweet. There's two remaining items mentioned above. Did you see my recommended rephrasing about the River/Melody bit? I understand if you missed it in amongst that wall of text, so I'll repost it: how about you rephrase it to say "Rory, meanwhile, has been sent back in time to the 1930s by a cherub Weeping Angel where he meets Melody Malone, who is revealed to be his daughter River Song"? Would that rewording accurately reflect the event as depicted in the episode?

Yep, I missed that. The way it is presented shows River first, with Rory realizing that she is Malone after, so I added that in to make it clearer ("who he realizes is Melody" etc). The only issue with the Twitter thing is that it says actor availability, while SFX simplifies it to time constraints; the accuracy may be compromised. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other remaining item is the SFX cite for the "old-fashioned cars". Address these last few items and I can pass the article. Thanks for all your improvements to the page so far. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just removed this as you replied here. And thank you for the awesome review! Glimmer721 ^talk 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed the Twitter cite as well as the bit it was citing. "Time constraints" does not necessarily preclude actor availability problems, and you're better off avoiding potential BLP issues by citing the Twitter post. By all means restore it when you get a reliable secondary source that mentions it. Same goes with the source used to support filming at Cardiff University--I examined it and it didn't specify where in Cardiff it was filmed or for which episode, so I removed it.

The article meets the GA requirements now, so I am finally passing it. Thanks again for all your hard work; though I only have the faintest knowledge of the Doctor Who franchise, the article was a pleasant, informative read. If you ever decide to try and push this to potential Featured Article status, it's highly recommended that you track down the print issue of Radio Times mentioned in this reference, and examine other potential print sources that may exist. The web cites the article currently relies allow you to meet the GA requirements handily, but for FA status, you want to ensure that you are comprehensive. Lastly, I hope you apply some of my comments here to both past and current GA noms you have worked out, so as to ensure that all your work is as best as it can be. Keep up the good work. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]