Jump to content

Talk:Forest of the Dead

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

Lead image

[edit]

I'm a bit curious why an editor chose File:Forest Of The Dead.JPG. I don't see how it best represents the episode. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images like that shouldn't summarize or represent, the episode. They should provide a visual image that is discussed in-text, aka critical commentary. I assume when this page is spiffed up, the commentary et al will mention the digital effects, which this image represents grandly.--108.211.217.112 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forest of the Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot"

[edit]

At the end of this section's third paragraph, we have the line "River refuses to tell him who she is before activating the interface, much to the Doctor's anguish," describing the immediate prelude to River's corporeal death. In fact, this quick bit of info omits the brief moment before activation wherein she actually did tell him, as a whisper in his ear, his own name -- which tells him exactly who she will be & is: his wife. Though the shock of it blows him away a bit, upon further questioning, she replies "Spoilers," which goes on from this show to become a tagline in "Doctor Who" whenever River Song (& future incarnations of the Doctor [& perhaps a few others?]) get into discussions of potential reality paths -- for River's timeline goes forward, then backward, then forward, then backward, etc. (she hits codas, & d.s. al codas, & verses, & bridges, & choruses -- just like a "Song" or a "Melody" [her true name] would musically, except this song is one for the ages, made of time, and not merely for the moment. (As such, certain lines become refrains: "Spoilers," because obviously certain things cannot be revealed before their time; "Hello Sweetie," which functions as a bridge; and perhaps others I'm not thinking of now.)) Also invoked here as background, but not said aloud, is the famous metaphor of "The River of Time," and Heraclitus' equally famous observation that one "never steps into the same river twice" [because neither the river nor the person stepping into it is the same from instant to instant]. Rtelkin (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, I think it is completely fair to include that that she whispers something to the Doctor that shocks him (this I added), as this would explain his anguish at her death. However, within the bounds of this episode and how we write about fiction, while now we know it was his Gallifryan name that she whispered, and why we knew that, it's "out of bounds" material to specifically include here. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Evangelista

[edit]

Why isn't miss Evangelista included in the final reunion (I mean besides the fact the actress might not have been available) ? Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forest of the Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forest of the Dead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will be reviewing this! This is the first GA article that I have reviewed.

I will give a proper in depth review but first I think these issues should be addressed:

  • In "Release", the dates should be in the style of "7 June 2008", not "7th" etc, and please can you link the TV shows that are mentioned?
    • Done
  • In "Release", remove "easily" from "easily out-ranked the football" as it does not sound neutral.
    • Reworded
  • I think that "Release" should be in "Production", or at the very least it should be "Release and reception" (not capitalised "reception").
    • It's the general outline all Doctor Who episode articles follow
  • Is it possible to expand the "Production" section with more info/sources? That would really help the article.
    • I'll try, but the references are from IA, and I think it's still down, so it'll take time
  • Images: Can the current image in the prose be reduced, as it is quite big, and can there be other free images there (e.g. Steve Pemberton)?
    • Will add it
  • In reception, "Similarly, Patrick Mulkern of Radio Times found Professor River Song interesting, someone the Doctor is yet to meet but someone who knows a lot about him, including his name." – The bold is a bit confusing, can this be quoted or clarified ?
    • Reworded

Once these are addressed/replied to I will give it a proper line by line review :) Please do not hesitate to ping me with any questions etc. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done/Responded to everything, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, also, thank you for taking up the review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the rest of the review, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I'll do the suggested changes when I get the time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry, I have been so busy that I did not see this. I will do the rest of the review tomorrow :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course, take your time, I was just reminding bcs pings get lost, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? DaniloDaysOfOurLives. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am very sorry, I have been unwell and hence was not able to look at this properly.

Production:

  • ""Forest of the Dead" was initially announced under the title "River's Run",[2] before its name was changed relatively late in production (Radio Times used the previous title in their column, the change being too late);" - Can you reword this, especially, the bit in brackets, and explain what? Also please link Radio Times.  Done (reworded)
  • "chosen by amalgamating two alternate titles" - Can this be clarified, as I am a bit confused?  Done
  • "were named after Steven Moffat's son and his son's friend, a big fan of Doctor Who" - were they both fans of Doctor Who, or just one?  Done
  • "the characters are completely themself, with nothing left behind" - I think it should be "themselves" (though if there could be clarifications, that would be great.  Done
  • "who is best known for his work as a member of The League of Gentlemen" - "best known" is not neutral ("well-known" may work) but also, is this necessary? I can see the links due to the League of Gentlemen being supernatural, but if it is not explained then it may just be worth putting "Pemberton had previously appeared worked with Tenant in the musical serial Blackpool.
    • both the episodes have a similar cast, and I was trying to avoid duplication; I will look for what can be added(which I was about to do, but IA is down)
  • In general, I think that the subheadings in production can be removed.
    • All Doctor Who episode article have these subheadings(if I find nothing about casting, I might remove that?)
      • edit- removed the casting section

Reception:

  • "found his brain searching for new superlatives" - What does this mean?
    • put in quotes- superlative as in the reviewer find it the best in many things
  • "that though the story cuts around through its various subplots, the end result is one of the most creative and moving story of the revived series" - can a quote be used here perhaps, or at least clarified?  Done(quoted)
  • "stunning twist" - "stunning" should either be quoted or it should be made obvious that he finds it stunning, otherwise it seems unneutral.  Done (quoted)
  • In general, I think several other sentences need to be reworded and to use quotes or to make it clear that these are the opinions of the critics and not come across as facts, as otherwise it makes the article sound unneutral.  Done


Overall, another issue I have found is that a lot in the plot and production (and reception but to a lesser extent) is a bit unclear to readers who do have knowledge of the episode or Doctor Who in general, and this makes it quite difficult to understand certain concepts. So it could be worth explaining some of the concepts a bit clearer.

Additionally, if anymore info can be found to put in the production section, that would really strengthen the article.

By the way, I want to say that this is not intended to be criticism or anything bad. I think you have done a great job and you should be very proud.

Let me know when you have addressed/responded and I will give more feedback. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon. Will take some time, will ping you when done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DaniloDaysOfOurLives, fixed the issues, will fix the overall issue you have mentioned by going through the article. Trying to find info about production. Thank you, you are doing a great review too. You can review further if you want, don't stop for me making more changes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified a bit for non-fans, but I think anything confusing is wikilinked, or explained. Is there anything that seems confusing, as maybe I as a fan can't see it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DaniloDaysOfOurLives Couldn't find anything more about production, fixed the other issues. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DaniloDaysOfOurLives, could you use a template or something to let me know which criteria I am lacking in. It's been a great review, but I have no clear idea how close the article is to passing, it's been two weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DaniloDaysOfOurLives, reply? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for a different reviewer, if it seems you might not have the time to review the article? (I mean it politely, to prevent any ambiguity of tone). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it tonight - I am sorry, I was trying to do it right. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, it's just there was not enough communication, I don't have much problem with it taking time, but I might take a wiki-break in a week or so, and would like to have it passed before then. You're doing good with the review btw. Also, I read your user page header, so I hope you are feeling better. Thanks again for taking up the review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate DaniloDaysOfOurLives? Like I'm glad you took the time to start reviewing this and gave such good suggestions to help me improve it. But if you do not have the time, I can ask someone else to review this, you don't need to bend over backwards trying to make time to review this. I'm already thankful enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the email (sorry, couldn't reply there). Hope the review will proceed well, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just fail it DaniloDaysOfOurLives, if you don't think it meets the criteria, you don't need to prolong the wait. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just failing it myself. I'm taking a semi-wikibreak and I'm tired of the stress of this passing or not. Hope you feel better health-wise. Thank you for the review. I will improve the article before nominating next time, in order to avoid delays due to uncertainty on the part of the reviewer.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry that this caused you stress :(. In all honesty, for the past few days I have been debating about what to do and looking at other GA episode articles, as I really wanted to pass this but I was/am not sure if it was in depth enough and I really did not want to pass it and then it be delisted immediately, as I thought that would cause more stress and sadness. I was also getting a bit overwhelmed with all the pings as I did not have a definite answer and I did not want to mess you around (and I have also been going through some personal issues and hence was not 100% in the right headspace). I think that the article is much better than it was and you have done great work on it. I am sorry :( If you would like to reopen it, I can ping another GA reviewer and we can pass it if it meets the criteria. However, if you would like to just move on for now that is understandable too. I am sorry again. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, it's fine. Happy birthday, btw! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And good luck with the review :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forest of the Dead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will take this on in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 sorry about the wait. Life's been getting busy on my end irl. Should be able to review this in the next few days so long as nothing else gets in the way. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I have been busy too. Take your time, no need to rush yourself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_of_the_Dead&oldid=1254533582"