Talk:Boom (Doctor Who)

Boom (Doctor Who) 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.
Review: May 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boom (Doctor Who) 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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

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.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Boom (Doctor Who) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that while filming the Doctor Who episode "Boom" some takes lasted up to seven minutes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boom (Doctor Who).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that while filming the Doctor Who episode "Boom" some takes lasted up to seven minutes?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6zAd_nTLXY

ALT1: ... that Steven Moffat was executive producer for only one episode of the fourteenth series of Doctor Who? Source: https://www.tvchoicemagazine.co.uk/tv/doctor-who/the-big-interview-doctor-whos-steven-moffat/
ALT2: ... that the Doctor Who episode "Boom" was shot in chronological order? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6zAd_nTLXY
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Silence Is Loud
Comment: TheDoctorWho is the top contributor on the article, I am the second. Alex 21 created the draft and moved in into the main space.

Moved to mainspace by OlifanofmrTennant (talk), TheDoctorWho (talk), and Alex 21 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Article is neutral, free from copyvio, suitably referenced, and meets the length and newness criteria—moved to mainspace on 21 May, the same day as this nomination. The hooks are succinct, neutral, interesting, and reliably sourced (though I would recommend adding timestamps to the video refs). My pick would be ALT2, then ALT0; I find ALT1 interesting personally, but I'm not sure general audiences would as well. QPQ is done (albeit a bit brief). This is good to go! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Timestamp for ALT2 is from 6:08 to 6:28; it's a quote from Russell. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review on soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is mostly well-written. Numerous confusing wordings, but overall fine.

2. No OR, all of the info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-" including a surprise appearance from Varada Sethu, who wasn't expected to debut in Doctor Who until the following series." This implies she just shows up on set as herself, and the wording here is a bit unprofessional. I'd reword this a bit just for clarity.

Plot

-"one of the Anglican Army" I'd change to "a member of"

-Hyperlink ambulance

-"The Doctor, having just arrived in the TARDIS, and followed by Ruby, chases after, then steps on a landmine." The wording with "and followed by Ruby" is iffy. I'd reword so it reads a bit less clunky.

-"To counterbalance himself, rather than having to stand on one leg, the Doctor takes Vater's cylinder." I'd mention The Doctor is standing on one leg first, and then talk about the counterbalance so it doesn't throw readers for as much of a loop.

-"Ruby is forced to keep Splice away from the Doctor and the cylinder, so she won't trigger the alarm." What alarm?

-Weren't the aliens named Kastarions and not Kastorians? Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

-"The Doctor warns Mundy of the situation." This sentence feels unneeded. I'd replace it with a sentence clarifying that Mundy shoots The Doctor, which summons the ambulance. Would also better explain the "attracted to combat" thing for readers.

-"leaving a cylinder which tells Mundy how much he loves her." I'd reword this since it feels unprofessional.

-"but Vater succeeds, not just in shutting off the landmine, thus allowing the Doctor to step off it, but also in taking down all of Villengard, ending the war, and allowing the ambulance to actually treat Ruby." This is very confusingly worded and would benefit from a reword and a sentence split.

-I'd merge the last sentence with the prior paragraph.

Production

-I'd change "(2017)" to "in 2017"

-"in which the Doctor steps on a landmine for a few moments and wanted to expand the concept to span an episode's entirety" I'd reword to "...a few moments, wanting to expand on the concept..."

-"Believing his first draft didn't start in the proper place, he scrapped it after writing between 12 and 14 pages to re-write it." Reword for clarity.

-"Moffat also assumed the role of executive producer for the episode and led tone meetings before filming began" I'd cut the also, and clarify what a tone meeting is.

-I'd cut "was filmed along with the rest of the fourteenth series" and shift the "fourteenth series" reference to after "block."

-"Sethu had however," I'd reword to "Sethu had previously..."

-"to that of Jenna Coleman's Clara Oswald, who was announced as a companion" I'd add context stating she is a prior companion.

Reception

-"that the high concept" What does this mean?

-"Additionally, Anita Singh with The Daily Telegraph thought that influence by Disney was too great and failed to see the potential risk believing that it was too soon for the new Doctor to die." But he doesn't die? Neither is this point on Disney elaborated. I'd either cut this or expand on this for clarity because right now this makes no sense.

Overall

-Article looks mostly good. Writing's very rough in places but the content itself is there. Fix the above and it should be good to go. Let me know if you have any questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've mixed most everything.

Regarding just your last two points:

The Doctor doesn't die, but the element of suspense in the episode was based around the fact that if the landmine blew, the Doctor would die. Singh fails to feel that suspense thinking that they wouldn't kill the new Doctor five episodes into his era.
I Wikilinked high concept, but it's basically (from my understanding) a production that has a basic and appealing premise. More specifically the quote from the WP page says High-concept narratives are typically characterised by an overarching "what if?" scenario that catalyses the following events. Many summer blockbuster movies are built on a high-concept idea, such as "what if we could clone dinosaurs?" as in Jurassic Park. In the case of this episode it would be "what if the Doctor is trapped on a landmine."

TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High concept seems fine.

I'm still iffy on the last sentence since Disney is not referenced at all prior to this, among other things. I also feel the bit on The Doctor dying should be reworded in a similar vein to how you're explaining it to me right now, given the way it's currently phrased in the article feels iffy.
I feel the last sentence about Gatwa should be merged with another paragraph in Reception.

@TheDoctorWho Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the prose around the Disney statement mentioning that Doctor Who is now a Disney co-production. That should hopefully provide some more insight on why she felt that the influence was too much. I also slightly reworded the Doctor dying bit, and merged that sentence about Gatwa to the paragraph about the episodes positive reception. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho one last thing, could you clarify that it's too soon in the season for the Doctor to die? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I used series rather than season, and clarified the Disney portion with programme, since we're still using the term "series" in place of "season." TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works! Happy to pass! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vater" = "Father" in German

Relevant? I do think so. Vater's 2nd line is "Have you done your teeth?", showing his priorities in life to the viewer, and later the Doctor: "John Francis Vater. Father in AI." and "However little is left of you, you are still a father. Dad to Dad…", so being a father is THE central definition of the character. In that light it's obvious that Moffat chose the name on purpose.

Would've been even funnier if his mate, who gets obliterated three minutes in, had been named something like Rothemd, Soldat or Opfer (="Redshirt", Soldier or Victim in German) instead of, quite blandly, Carson. Missed opportunity. :) 93.237.0.133 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a reliable source stating any of this for it to be notable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets mentioned here (also on TvTropes and Fandom). Does that count? 93.237.0.133 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources. Reactor literally solicits articles from their readers and Tvtropes and Fandom are literally user generated content. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]