Talk:The Name of the Doctor

History

Isn't someone going to update this? It's been out for a few hours and I'm dying to know what happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.36.238 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you deleted the history pages containing the spoilers, but still that's going a bit too far. I came to this page to read the spoiler.--121.222.197.242 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Go somewhere else to read them. Most people will not want to know. Wikipedia contains spoilers but not for programmes that haven't been broadcast yet. –anemoneprojectors– 16:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being a dickhead and just leave the spoilers alone. Wikipedia arsehole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggman17 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Nice. Amazing really that someone would sign up to post things like that on Wikipedia. 94.171.243.212 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

However Wikipedia does post spoilers of direct-to-video movies that haven't been released in certain countries but have been released in others, I think this would fall under that account.--121.222.197.242 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The leak of the video is a hoax

I know someone in America who would have received a copy, if it were real. They did not, therefore, this is only a rumour. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they were about to be shipped to them, as well as others, but then they realized it features an episode that hasn't been aired anywhere yet so they quickly stopped.--121.222.197.242 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal friend in America alone isn't a sufficient source to support that claim. If you are able to find a reliable source that gives more weight and evidence to that claim, then perhaps it can be Wikipedia-worthy. Every claim, including those in the "significant minority," needs a reliable source. And besides, for now, most (if not all) current sources point to the production error being true. GabeIglesia (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone left a response but it was so nasty that I have removed it and blocked the IP. But yes, a reliable source is required. The fact that something hasn't happened that someone might expect to happen doesn't mean anything. Realiable sources state that there was a leak. –anemoneprojectors– 10:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Only 210 blu-rays were shipped early. 87.244.72.208 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed more and more blogs talking about how this leak was a hoax. Such as - http://www.therealstevegray.com/2013/05/update-the-doctor-who-finale-has-not-leaked/ - and - http://www.kasterborous.com/2013/05/when-is-a-leak-not-a-leak-poll/

So is it possible that a compromise can be made so that the 'leak' portion of this entry includes something like this - "Despite widespread claims that the episode was leaked, there is limited evidence - besides one photo on tumblr - that this leak really occurred, leaving many to suspect that it was just a publicity stunt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.151.202 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Blogs and tumblr sites are not acceptable as reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless those who "suspect that it was just a publicity stunt" were reliable sources that we can cite, probably not. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this page - http://www.kasterborous.com/2013/05/the-name-of-the-doctor-dvd-leak-latest/ - that states "The cynical among you might be wondering what all the fuss is about. Is this leak genuine? Could it have been avoided?

And isn’t it all a little bit convenient in a series of Doctor Who with low overnight ratings for the finale to be leaked in such a way that the majority of viewers can’t (so it would seem) get to see it?

After all, Doctor Who websites (and sections of the media) have been talking about little else since Sunday. Could it be that we’re all being taken for a ride, ensnared in a plot to bring the Series 7 finale to the public attention?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.151.202 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Um... no

" The Doctor realises this is an incarnation he has yet to be and response for the war on Trenzalore, and accuses him of being rash and not acting in the name of the Doctor, and then escapes with Clara. The figure (John Hurt) turns to look at them, as the screen credits identify him as "The Doctor"."

This is not true, he is previous incarnation, not one who he "has yet to be". Also we don't know what terrible act he did (though it's probably the Time War, not the battle related to Trenzalore) Otherwise how the hell would he know what this incarnation did if it was one he hadn't experienced? Someone please edit this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.31.254 (talk • contribs)

It's clear that it is a future incarnation - Clara never saw him (despite living all of the Doctor's lives to that point), and the Doctor knows that he was responsible for the war that would also be where he dies. It has to be post-11th. (whether that's 12th, Valeyard, or what, we can't say for sure). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also consider the Doctor has spoiled himself on his own timeline - he knows he dies at Trenzalore and that there was a great war there, despite having never been there before. He knows that war was not done in his own name but for another reason. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that this is "clear." It's anything but. What's written on the page now is an interpretation, but we don't yet know if it's an accurate one. Better to recount what actually happens or is said in the episode rather than impose one's own interpretation on events. 68.35.21.38 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is NOTHING in the episode that clarifies whether Hurt is from the past or the future. My money is on past but for now it should be left ambiguous, stating he is a future incarnation is just OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR-BT (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I could have sworn I heard "future" (or somehting like that) but a few review sites purposely leave it open, and thus I've changed it to "another incarnation". --MASEM (t) 01:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. There was an editing conflict and I left it in from the other version. Should have known better. Also, possibly unrelated, but please don't edit the page to make tenses grammatically incorrect. Kthnx. Citizen-13 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was a rushed and poor translation. However, there was also a line of pure speculation about the ending in the previous versions.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Doctor outright said the reason she didn't see him was because he wasn't a Doctor. He was a previous incarnation who "broke the promise" of the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.31.254 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Onscreen, any Doctor has been credited as "The Doctor" "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who". John Hurt was stated in his appearance as "The Doctor" and then later in the credits as "The Doctor". It was stated twice he was the Doctor, and only once that he wasn't. He had the same credit as Matt Smith - "The Doctor" and therefore should be placed in the "Doctor" section along with Matt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.37.85 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In-universe continuity aside, he's not the star of the programme. Wikipedia prefers an out-of-universe tone. DonQuixote (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuity error

In the continuity section it states that the shots of the first two Doctors are colourized, this is incorrect only the first doctor footage is colourized, the 2nd Doctor footage is, like the third Doctor shots, taken from "The Five Doctors" and was originally in colour, small point but still.81.111.126.82 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to concur with this statement. Only the images of the 1st Doctor were colourized. 96.250.84.166 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. DonQuixote (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Trenzalore

The connection with Trenzalore as described in The Wedding of River Song should be explained fully in the continuity section of this article (and the connection also noted in the Wedding article's continuity section too). 81.135.128.140 (talk)

But it doesn't relate to this episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.16.133 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2013

Under continuity Strax's comment amount Big Head is not a reference to the Face of Boe at all. Strax does not know the difference between males and females, hence why he calls Jenny 'boy'. He was actually referring to River Song, as can clearly be worked out when Madam Vastra corrects Strax by saying big HAIR after he says big head, a clear reference to River and her mop of curls. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Old stuff

In the absence of a Fourth Dimension factfile (what is up with that?), has anyone encountered a source that identifies all the old audio/video clips used in this episode? U-Mos (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: remove "monolithic effigy"

Can we replace the line that refers to "an enormous, monolithic effigy of the TARDIS"? It isn't great on two counts. Firstly, an effigy is a representation of a person rather than a thing. Try

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/effigy?q=effigy

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/effigy?q=effigy

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/effigy?showCookiePolicy=true

Even if the Tardis were a thing, "effigy" wouldn't be a great word to use in the article. In Modern English, it most commonly (admittedly not solely) refers to a crude scarecrow-style representation that is burnt or hanged.

Secondly, monolithic isn't quite the right adjective either. It definitely isn't monolithic in the original (literal) sense of the word, and, while it's certainly big and stony-looking, it isn't uniform or characterless enough to be monolithic in the figurative sense. Try http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/monolithic?q=monolithic and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monolithic?s=t. While this might seem like nit-picking, I associate "effigy" and "monolithic" with purple prose, so it's doubly good to avoid them if they're not even the right words! Señor Service (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned up the overly-detailed, sometimes incoherent, and frequent second-language grammar, stopping short of the River Song farewell. If I have time later I may fix the rest (see below) but welcome help from someone else (Don Quixote?) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Strax turns evil" is OR. Other minor tweaks... ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: remove unjustified personal interpretation of River Song farewell scene

This edit request is less trivial. The synopsis seems to include someone's personal interpretation of the Doctor's farewell to River Song, claiming that she "makes [him] either give her a proper goodbye or promise to see her again; the Doctor commits to the latter."

I don't know if this is wishful thinking on the part of a River Song fan, but I'm pretty sure that's not what's shown on screen at all. He notes that she should have faded by now; she says it's hard because he hasn't said goodbye; he says that he doesn't know how to say goodbye, and invites her to tell him. She says, "If you ever loved me say it like you’re going to come back" (emphasis mine). The farewell is so poignant because neither expects to see the other again. After all, the whole point of this farewell is so that River can finally "fade". They're acting like there will be a "next time" to make parting easier.

Anyway, that's arguably my own personal interpretation :o) so I'm not suggesting we include it - but I think it's important to describe this scene in a more neutral way (simply relaying what happens on-screen) rather than making the unjustified leap that the Doctor has "committed" to seeing River again (or, indeed, pimping any other unjustified fan interpretation in the synopsis) Señor Service (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it was the goodbye that the Doctor didn't give back in "Forest of the Dead". The Doctor's goodbye is because River will not be able to see him again (although her final line implies there might be a way); whether he will see be able to see her again isn't affected by this episode at all. Anyway, I've had a go at rewriting there (and made it clear that River is post-death, a bit of an omission really!) U-Mos (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the line "Vastra is forced to kill him to save herself, and she runs back inside."

I was under the impression that Simeon's meddling had caused Strax to disappear from existence and Vastra had simply pulled out a weapon in self-defense, but not actually shot him with it. Can someone confirm one or the other?

Also regarding the line "and he tells her that he does not know how to say goodbye to her". He says "[Talking to River] would hurt him too much". Both are true, but I think we should include both somehow.

Nicereddy (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The gun lights up when she points it at him. Also, and this bit's a little bit of interpretation so take it with a grain of salt, Strax seems vexed about it when they're brought back to life...Strax: "It was an unprovoked and violent attack, but that's no excuse." DonQuixote (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is Strax apologising for his attack on Vastra; even though it was an unprovoked and violent attack, which as a Sontaran he considers to be positive attributes, he considers *his* actions to be inexcusable. U-Mos (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Her gun lights up but never seems to shoot anything. It looks more like he disintegrates. After he dissapears Vastra walks to where he was and yells "Strax!?", something she likely wouldn't have done had she shot him.

Nicereddy (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of ray guns shoot invisible rays. And the rest treads on the border of interpretation and original research. We have to be careful with that. DonQuixote (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any non-OR interpretation other than she shoots him. Jenny disappeared because we are told that the Doctor once saved her life - we are not aware that he did the same for Strax, but we do know that the Doctor is responsible for his unlikely alliance with Vastra. U-Mos (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Strax died in a good man goes to war and faded as it was being undone that is not OR. The gun is never fired hence Vastra's reaction. Strax is easily confused and therefore assumes that she shot him rather than him fading away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.19.5 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not mentioned in this episode, so it's synthesis. We have to be careful with that too. 17:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I just watched the scene again, and it is completely clear that Vastra shoots Strax in self-defence. I've changed the article accordingly. U-Mos (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I rewatched the scene as well. To me, it seems that she pulls the weapon, charges it to fire, but he disappears before she can fire, and she is surprised by this unexpected event, calling out his name twice. It doesn't seem completely clear to me. :( 209.195.112.21 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It also didn't look to me like she killed him. I have put a non-specific phrase in the summary - this is not a key plot point anyway. Mezigue (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone appears to have changed this to say she killed him again. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

About the leak of the DVD being a hoax

I live in the U.S., and there are a lot of Doctor Who fans over here. So just because someone you know ordered it and didn't get it when other people did, THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE HERE besides that 1 person. It was a small chance that whoever you know got it, so you cna't expect everyone who ordered it in the U.S. to get it at the same time. That'd just be stupid. So saying it was a hoax when 1 person you know living here didn't get it isn't a great arguement. ClaraOswaldLives (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)ClaraOswaldLives And I just saw the thing at the top, and almost punched myself. Didn't notice that I could have put this there... T_T — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaraOswaldLives (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it happened. If it was a hoax, the production team wouldn't have publicly apologised for it. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! See? It makes sense then, it did happen! ClaraOswaldLives (talk)ClaraOswaldLives

Episode number

Is it worth discussing this? Currently it is listed as being the 13th in the series but to me it's the 14th. The Christmas special between the two parts played a central role in the overall story of the series, and indeed the article for The Snowmen lists that as the sixth episode of series 7. Surely then The Name of the Doctor must be considered episode 14? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.221.7 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but the series 7 part 2 DVD is pretty hard to argue with: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Who-Part-Matt-Smith/dp/B00BJ66DEG/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1369765197&sr=1-2&keywords=doctor+who+series+7 U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Christmas specials are never counted with the rest of the season. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are we not using the BBC's own numbering system? As far as they are concerned, TNOTD is Series 7 Part 2, episode 8 (see here). Surely, that's authoritative. Mezigue (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That could work. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

End of the plot section

Earlier today Hearfourmewesique edited the end of the plot to read

The Doctor angrily replies: "but not in the name of the Doctor". As he carries Clara away, the stranger turns around and a caption appears: "Introducing John Hurt as The Doctor"

I feel that this is preferable to speculation about whether Hurt is from the Doctors past present or future. All of those violate WP:SPECULATION and WP:OR. The only info included should be what we can verify. I can well remember all the guessing that went on about River Song when the character was first introduced to the show. Much of it turned out to be wrong. That is not to say that it can't be tweaked but we should not be including any speculative statements. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In hopes that it helps someone find a reference

I have gone through my blu-ray and here is what I found. The body double for McGann's 8th Dr runs right in front of Clara at the 1m 9s mark just after we see the 3rd Dr in Bessie and just before the 2nd goes running through a park. This sequence is repeated at the 35m 40s mark. It is very quick and easy to miss at normal speed. Tennant's 10th Dr shows up at the 35m 29s mark. He is in the lower right as Clara looks out on a futuristic city skyline. I think it is from either "The Forest of the Dead" or "Silence in the Library." Now, of course, this is WP:OR but I've posted it in the hope that it helps others find a reference that we can use in the continuity section. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any direct confirmation that the body double who runs past Clara is meant to represent the Eighth Doctor, but I did find a tweet from Marcus Wilson confirming that the episode features "twelve [Doctors] if you look really closely". [1] —Flax5 16:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. If there are extras on the DVD/Blue-ray release of the full season this fall they might let us know then. It is too bad that they aren't doing any "Production notes" like the ones that are on the classic series DVDs cause I feel sure they would clue us in there. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Marnette that Ten appears where he says he does. Which makes this sentence wrong:

The Tenth Doctor is seen for a brief second in the library from "Forest of the Dead", although he is seen in shadow and only in the corner.

I am amending it to conform more closely to the facts, which will also make it easier for the viewers to spot for themselves. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Oh and my bad, I was originally going to simply remove the sentence altogether till I found this discussion here. My explanation for that would have appeared above as a second continuity error, but I've removed that as redundant. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Merzique just reverted my improvement without reverting the original text. Would you care to explain why? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Messenger Boy

Messenger boy in this episode is the same messenger boy in the 2nd episode of the 2nd season of Ripper Street—another BBC show. Ripper Street season 2 is set in 1890 while the Paternoster gang are in 1893. Carl Francis (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015 Suggestion

The Great Intelligence and its Whisper Men disappear into the timeline, and Vastra notices that the stars in the sky are going out as the positive effects of the Doctor's travels are nullified by the Intelligence's interference. Jenny and Strax both disappear.

Should be changed to The Great Intelligence and its Whisper Men disappear into the timeline, and Vastra notices that the stars in the sky are going out as the positive effects of the Doctor's travels are nullified by the Intelligence's interference. Jenny disappears, and Strax – without the Doctor's past influence – reverts to being hostile towards Vastra and begins attacking her, calling her an impurity to the Sontaran race. Vastra produces a derringer and uses it to disintegrate Strax in order to protect herself. InvertedLens (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Needs some verifiability. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article: "During their conference, faceless humanoids called Whisper Men attack the gang and kill Jenny;"

The other article: "During the "conference call", the three are captured by the Whisper Men, minions of the Great Intelligence, who uses them as bait to bring the Eleventh Doctor to his tomb on the planet Trenzalore." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.49.72 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

John Hurt in infobox

@MarnetteD and DonQuixote: Feels inconsistent to not list Hurt in the infobox here, when every other newly-introduced Doctor is (The Parting of the Ways, Time of the Doctor et al). Apologies if there is a discussion and consensus somewhere, as I can't find one! U-Mos (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hurt appears for a few seconds in this episode, and lack "and introducing X as the Doctor" credit when a new incarnation is instroduced. It is the same reason Capaldi's not named in the infobox on Day of the Doctor. --Masem (t) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We're going to ignore the full screen "Introducing John Hurt as the Doctor" then? This just feels very arbitrary to me. No material difference to any other Doctor introduction beyond OR-leaning 'not the series' main star'. Capaldi was uncredited in DotD, so there's a distinct difference there. U-Mos (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I remember correctly, the editors involved in the discussion were being cautious in that there were very little information at the time (similar to the Next Doctor and the Ruth Doctor). It could probably be updated now that we do have more information. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First off JH is not the series lead and there is long standing consensus that only those that are (or have been) lead get their names in that field of the infobox. Also note that your examples involve a change of that lead via regeneration :-) The same reasoning applies at the The Doctor (Doctor Who) - especially the picture in the infobox. Next, there is not one discussion rather there have been numerous ones over the years in various places. Since that is the case if you want that consensus to change IMO you would do better to post at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who because said change will effect numerous articles and templates (Template:Doctor Who navbox for example) throughout the 'pedia. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In which case, why is Hurt in the infobox for Day of the Doctor? I'm not overly bothered personally, but thought it was worth getting some clarity - especially following this week's episode! Would it be worth making all this clear in the Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode guidelines or elsewhere? Thanks for all the quick replies, anyway. U-Mos (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right about forming a (new) clarity which is why a broader discussion at the wikiproject is probably better. After the events of last night I'm starting to think we need a second montage pic for pther Dr's at The Doctor (Doctor Who) including people like Hurt, Toby Jones and Jo. MarnetteD|Talk 02:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, project discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Infobox Doctors. U-Mos (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 19:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I saw your comments on WT:WHO do you still plan to partake in the nom? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I'll be fine to help with the completion of this nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ClaudineChionh (talk · contribs) 08:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting this. Note: this is my first ever GAN review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I think this is getting really close! I haven't done a source check yet as I got sidetracked by a content dispute elsewhere, but I didn't want to leave this hanging over the weekend. I'll come back to this within 24 hours. Sorry, I shouldn't make promises I can't keep! But I havent't forgotten. Also, as noted, this is my first GAN review and I welcome feedback on my feedback.

I'm happy to pass this now. Congratulations and thank you for your patience! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The second and third paragraph of the "Writing" section have some awkward and overly-long sentences; but I think a lot of this could be cut – see #3b.

   Resolved

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   I have checked direct quotes and ratings figures (§ Source check). One needs a small correction. Two sources are unavailable and the Wayback Machine is down. The rest look good, so if Wayback is still down in, say, 18 hours, I'd still feel confident about passing #2b.

   The Archive is still doing maintenance but my spot check of the live sources gives me confidence to pass this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No likely issues raised by Copyvio Detector.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This episode is not only the last one in the seventh series, it forms a kind of trilogy with The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor, setting things up for the 50th anniversary celebrations. I was surprised to see no mention of these at all in this article (only a fleeting reference at the very end).

   I tried to find something on this, but there is very little actually covering the connection, and if there's more detailed items, it's gotten very buried under more recent Google News results. I've added a source verifying this connection, and I'll see if me or my co-nom can't find something more detailed soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

   @ClaudineChionh: Yeah everything I found has been from non-rs and web forums. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

   I think just adding those links to the two other episodes in the lead should be fine. It's possible I'm indulging in a bit of OR with my memories of 2013. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

   Just a note you dont have to check every source just some of them usually between 5-10. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The "Writing" section starts off with context-setting observations about the darker tone and the introduction of a new kind of monster, but then gets tangled up in some of the changes between the original and final scripts, while missing the broader picture as noted in 3a. Similarly, the "Behind the scenes" factoids in the "Filming" section feel like unnecessary trivia. See § Suggested cuts below.

   Resolved

    – Sections trimmed.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Uses non-free episode promotional image (in line with other episode articles) and free image of unique monster.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this is well on the way to GA status. Paring back the production trivia and adding more context leading up to the 50th anniversary episodes should satisfy #3.

   I believe this now meets all the criteria for a Good Article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggested cuts

Resolved

• Writing

  Second paragraph from Other differences included location shoot differences to end of paragraph

  Third paragraph from The second draft of the script was dated to 7 November, 2012 to which now resembled the Doctor's TARDIS interior as it did in the final episode.

  Tried paring down both a bit. Summarized it as both scripts having various differences. Let me know if I should alter this further. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just needs a little minor copy-editing for MOS:DASH and inconstent capitalisation, but passes for the purpose of GA. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll get on that hopefully before the end of the day Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Filming

  Whole paragraph beginning In a scene in which Strax brawls with a Scotsman

  I'll leave the final decision for cutting this up to my co-nom, since I'm admittedly not sure how much of this should be cut or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Cut, now that you mention in it does read like a series of trivia facts. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Source check

• § Writing

  "frothy" and "funeral-like"

   Partly done Accurate summary of the Ainsworth source, but "frothy" appears on p. 88 (not p. 89) and I couldn't find a direct quote for "funeral-like" so it shouldn't have quotation marks

  The idea of the Whisper Men came from "the thought of stylish, whispering, almost faceless creatures" which seemed frightening and appropriate for "an episode that looks forward and back".

   Pending Why did I try to check this while the Wayback Machine is offline? I'l try again later this weekend otherwise will have to take it on trust.

• § Home media

  Moffat later complimented the "210 of them, with the top secret episode in their grasp – and because we asked nicely, they didn't breathe a word."

   Verified Metro source

• § Broadcast

  seen by 5.46 million viewers upon its initial release

   Pending This ref is actually for "Nightmare in Silver" overnight ratings. I couldn't find a ratings report for "Name of the Doctor" in the SFX/GamesRadar+ archive. The original URL was http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/05/19/doctor-who-the-name-of-the-doctor-overnight-ratings/ but that's now a dead link and I can't check the Wayback Machine.

  the figure rose to 7.45 million

   Verified Ainsworth source

  making Doctor Who the third most-watched programme of the week on BBC One

   Verified Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (now Barb Audiences) source

  Appreciation Index of 88

   Verified Ainsworth source

• § Critical reception

  The Guardian described the episode as "the best episode of the season", and "possibly the best finale we've seen".

   Verified

  Mark Snow of IGN gave the episode 9.1/10, praising the final conversation between the Doctor and River Song, as well as the revelation about Clara; however he noted that the Great Intelligence was "a little underwhelming" and "not very threatening", and that while the Whispermen impressed initially, they did not "[make] a great villain."

   Verified

  Hogan, Daily Telegraph – He noted that it was "momentous, moving and thrilling". However, he also noted that the episode had "a tad too much clunking exposition, the odd spot of creaky CGI and some unconvincing metaphors about soufflés and leaves." Despite this, he called it a "breathless, brilliant finale".

   Verified

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.