Talk:The Hungry Earth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Hungry Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Hungry Earth has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Hungry Earth is part of the Doctor Who (series 5) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Torchwood is a spinoff of Doctor Who[edit]

Made an edit making it clear that Torchwood is a spinoff of Doctor Who. I do not like it when it previously said that Chris Chibnall was best known for his work on the science fiction series Torchwood. The problem with describing Torchwood as just a science fiction series and not a Doctor Who spin-off is that it does not make clear Torchwood's relations with Doctor Who and makes its sounds like a non-related show to Doctor Who which of course is misleading. In fact if Torchwood was not related to Doctor Who it is less likely Chris Chibnall would have written this episode not to mention it is not his first time writing for the parent Doctor Who series. So please do not revert back to the misleading description of Torchwood without discussing it here first. Also if the reference to Torchwood is to remain in this article than the fact that it is a spin-off of Doctor Who has to be maintained and if this is disagreeable then just remove the Torchwood reference from this article altogether. It has to be one or the other. There is no third option. Another thing to consider is that this is not Chris Chibnall's first Doctor Who episode as he wrote 42 three years earlier in 2007 and the article for 42 makes no mention that he had written for Torchwood. I mean what is so special about The Hungry Earth article to warrant the Torchwood reference about Chibnall but not for the same reference of the same writer to be in the 42 article and this is not in anyway a suggestion for anyone to make a messy edit of the 42 article in order to include the Chibnall Torchwood fact. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who doubts that Torchwood is a spinoff should consider what other famous television series can be made using the letters 't o r c h W o o D'. 86.168.21.166 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood[edit]

I have made a number of accurate changes which keep being changed back, despite referencing and links to verify my changes. They are correct, honestly. A review of the episode confirms the setting as 2020, the 2015 of the previews was a mistake. And the BBC Press Office lists Cold Blood as 7:00-7:50, therefore 50 minutes long. --DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until the official BBC site changes, or the episode airs, we assume that the BBC are accurate..cause you know, they made the show. magnius (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but when a review of the episode confirms this, it's hardly lying is it? Also can't you accept the BBC press office for Cold Blood as confirmation of a 50 minute running time? The time's were confirmed today and for me, 7-7:50 = 50 minutes. ETA: Also why delete a synopsis given from the BBC Press Office for Cold Blood, you surely cannot consider that not reliable. --DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a copyright violation to use it verbatim. It's also not in encyclopedic style. Please stop. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 18:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it used on countless articles without deletion, the press office synopses are free to use, that's what they're there for. --DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're copyrighted. Please stop. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Vs 2015[edit]

Can we please try and stop warring over this for the next hour? We'll soon know what the on screen caption says, so just have some patience. magnius (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Silurians/Inferno[edit]

This story seems like a rehashed mix of Dr. Who and the Silurians and Inferno - does anyone know if this was the intention? I haven't found anything that mentions Inferno in relation to this story.--Michig (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've not come across any reliable sources to that effect. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 12:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Edgepedia (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hungry Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	1 Dablink (Over the Rainbow) please fix it. You need a non breaking space between numbers and measurements (for example, you say: 21 kilometres in the Plot section and there are a few more in other sections) or use {{convert}}.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref 4 - Needs publishing date
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	It would be nice to see some citations in the infobox.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is very good but just fix these minor issues and it will pass. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have fixed the dablink and added {{convert}} to the 21 kilometers, but I do not know what you mean by "non-breaking spaces". Ref #4 does not give a publishing date. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put   between the numbers and measurements. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this for the instances of [Number] million; I do not believe there are any other measurements in the article. If there are, please tell me. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]