Talk:The Wedding of River Song/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good generally. A few nit-picks and minor points to sort out, but nothing major and feel free to argue on any of the points. I also did some minor copy-editing, but just revert anything you are not happy with. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "It was written by showrunner Steven Moffat": Is there a better description of Moffat than the rather informal "showrunner". Lead writer? Executive producer?
  • "to escape his supposed death at the hands of the Silence": Not too sure that "supposed" covers this. To all intents and purposes, he was killed, and not by the Silence either. What about just plain "death", or perhaps "apparent death" would work better.
    • Changed to "apparent death". He was never killed; it was always the Teselecta. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where all of time is running at once and collapsing": A bit vague. And "simultaneously" would be better than "at once". What about "which is causing its collapse".
    • Reworded. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put back "collapsed", as "deteriorate" is slightly vague, particularly for a casual reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With his escape plan figured out": I think this could be cut, and maybe just add how his escape is revealed at the end of the episode.
  • ""The Wedding of River Song" concludes the arc of the series": A bit ambiguous; what about "the story arc of the series". However, you have two "series" in one sentence at the moment.
  • "It also pays tribute to the classic series character Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, who is said to have died, due to the death of actor Nicholas Courtney the preceding February": Too much going on here. Perhaps cut "the preceding February" for a start. And does the episode pay tribute simply by having the Brig die?
    • Cut out some. I think the specifics are better in the body of the article. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and received positive to mixed reviews from critics": I'm not a fan of this phrasing in TV articles, as it is basically OR. Positive to mixed really just means "mixed", otherwise we have editorial voice providing its own summary of reviews.
    • Changed. I just had it there because there were 3 or so reviews that were positive, and then several others that were more mixed. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While visual elements were praised, the story received mixed reception in regards to characters and the resolution.": Perhaps "Although visual elements of the story were praised, the characters and resolution of the episode received a mixed reception."

Plot

  • Not sure about the weighting here. The plot section is roughly one third of the article, and in my view needs to be cut a little.
    • I'll try to work on it. I tried earlier but there are just so many elements to the plot.... Glimmer721 talk
  • Also, the plot section does not really reflect the twisty nature of the plot; the back-and-forth between the "present" and the "flashback". For example, the episode opens with Churchill. But I'm not sure of a neat way to do this.
    • Yeah, me neither. It did occur to me, but I felt it would be too choppy or long written that way. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which enable them to avoid the memory alterations caused by the Silence.": Not sure this is quite correct; did they not simply record the images so that the wearer could remember what happened, rather than prevent memory alterations?
    • I've reworded it to be more vague, as the actual specifics are not elaborated on. Either way it did prevent the wearer from forgetting. It's something about forging a neural pathway to remind the wearer of the Silence. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't offer any further comment on this section until the above points are addressed or answered (feel free to argue, by the way!).
  • Continuity (I'm never too sure how encyclopaedic these sections are, but that is just me): "In "Forest of the Dead", River whispers something in the Doctor's ear that makes him trust her, which the Doctor states just before her death was "my name" and that "There's only one reason I would ever tell anyone my name"." Worth mentioning that the Doctor whispers something to River in "Let's Kill Hitler"?
    • I don't think that's been commented upon by any of the sources I've read, but if something is revealed in the actual series then it will be added. There's also the comment in the Confidential for "A Good Man Goes to War" that the Gallifreyan name on the cot was the Doctor's name - implying that if River could read Gallifreyan, then she would know his name. Both hinge on speculation at the present moment. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just to check (and apologies if I have raised this with you before), is it common in TV articles to refer to characters by their first name (i.e. River, rather than Song)? Not a big deal either way.
    • I think the rule is generally towards whatever the characters are commonly referred to by the other characters. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "concludes the arc of the Doctor's apparent death which began in the series opener, "The Impossible Astronaut", as well as more pieces of River Song's timeline.": Again, "story arc" may be more accessible for the general reader. Also, as written, this suggests that the episode "concludes … more pieces of River Song's timeline". Maybe reword the last part to "and resolves more parts of River Song's timeline".
  • "Several previous characters reappear in the episode": How can you have a "previous character". Perhaps just cut "previous".
  • Done, "reappear" does cover it. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…which was also the inspiration for the previous Doctor Who Christmas special.": Is this relevant to the episode at hand?
    • Nope. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to keep in Dickens, that is fine as it directly concerns this episode. It was the relevance of the Christmas special I was unsure of. But no matter either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As her director is Richard Senior, the sequence was most likely shot during the making of "Let's Kill Hitler".": I'm afraid I neither understand this nor see its relevance.
    • Richard Senior was shown as the direct to Viera and his only directing credit for series 6 is "Let's Kill Hitler", thus it was shot during the filming of that episode (as the authors of that book have kindly deduced). The significance being it was filmed at a different point than most of the episode. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see now. What about re-wording to "as Richard Senior directed her sequences..." to make it clearer? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast and reception

  • Audience share?
    • Not in the article, but I'll see if I can find a reliable source on it. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode has received positive to mixed reviews from critics.": As in the lead, this is vaguely OR. And reading the reviews here, they do not seem too mixed. One or two with reservations, but not enough to call it mixed.
    • So should I change it to "positive" then? Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your call really, but I think it should be positive or mixed. What about something like "mainly positive but with reservations over X and Y"? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have done that.
  • I think perhaps too many reviewers are quoted when a one sentence summary of their views would suffice. As it is, this section is perhaps a little long.
    • I'll check this out. I generally like to explain what the reviewers felt was wrong or right using their words, to avoid any possible paraphrasing issues. Looking over it, a lot of the reviewers got only one sentence. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are happy with the balance as it is now, that is fine with me and would not be an issue for this one passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I combined two of the smaller paragraphs together. Glimmer721 talk 17:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Spotchecks reveal no major problems
    • "and provided the uncredited voice of Danny Boy in "Victory of the Daleks".": Uncredited is not supported by the ref.
    • Done. It doesn't matter anyway. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One image, appropriately licences.
  • No dablinks, and external links seem fine.

I'll place this on hold for the moment, but don't foresee any major problems with passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the minor issues and will work on the bigger ones. Glimmer721 talk 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some strikes. I'll have another look at the plot section later and see if I have any solutions as I appreciate the difficulties here. It's not the easiest story to summarise. Otherwise, looking very good. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Went through the plot and cut some detail out. I've checked out some TV episode pages of shows that often use flashbacks/flash-sideways (like Lost, which I have never seen) and in the plot sections they are put in a separate section or paragraph from the main plot, so I think the current structure would suffice. Glimmer721 talk 17:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good to go now. My one remaining query (and this may be my memory failing): when River went to see Amy, I don't remember it being after Amy had witnessed the Doctor's death, but rather after the events that had ... sort of ... not really happened in this story. But I suspect you may know better than me on this one, so passing anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be after; when River asks her what's up, she says, "Well, the Doctor's dead", and then River explains what actually happened. Glimmer721 talk 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wedding_of_River_Song/GA1&oldid=1085921871"