Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 6/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

April 23

The premiere on BBC America is on April 23, but there is no source which gives the date of the UK premiere. It could be before April 23. Hektor (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A Christmas Carrol

A Christmas Carrol should be in the episode list at the top like in series 2 - 4.--JAC2008 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that confirm that "A Christmas Carol" is part of series 6, so we cannot claim that. — Edokter (talk) — 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
They are in the Series 6 template however and so are Time and Space. For the above above reason, should these be removed also? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No; those are navigation templates. They make no assertions about episodes; they merely aid navigation between articles. — Edokter (talk) — 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but If I were someone unfamiliar with the episode structure of Doctor Who, and I was using those templates to find a particular episode, I would believe that they were part of Series 6, simply because I'd just expanded a template labelled 'Series 6' to find them. It seems, as far as previous templates go, there is already a 2009-10 Specials template. Should there not be a 2010-11 Specials template for uniformity and resolve any ambiguity over which series an episode is in? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not part of series 5 as the dvd boxset has been released and so it will be in the series 6 boxset. It was also filmed as series 6 episode X.--JAC2008 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi JAC2008. Wikipedia articles are based on the information in verifiable reliable sources. We don't publish original research. Your first sentence includes a prediction about the future and therefore not verifiable, we don't know how the Christmas Special will be released. Do you have a reliable source for the 2nd? (If this sounds very complex, imagine how it would be if we all just published our opinion in articles?). Edgepedia (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at the production codes for series 5 and 6? Edgepedia (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you check this website it will give you all the dates of filming for the series--JAC2008 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Doctor Who Magazine 428 also lists it as in the series with an ealier edition saying that recording of the sixth series has begun with the christmas special.--JAC2008 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I may be able to help you! I know what JAC2008 is saying here because every Christmas special is the start of the next series and it is unfortunate that I have to tell you this. In this link here it has a panel down the side that lists the episode as number 14 of what it says is the "same season" as season one. I am equally as confused here, but don't worry! I dunno if this is helpful to you guys... but get in touch with me to keep me updated!
Thefartydoctor (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in the writing credit for episode 12

Moffat is writing the last 2 episodes of the season. The chart shows Gareth Roberts writing Ep. 12 which is incorrect. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, then it'll be corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.168.137.125, 29 May 2011

In the description for episode 7, A Good Man Goes to War, please hyperlink the name River Song to the wikipedia page River Song (Doctor Who). This will allow readers of the page to find more information on the character.

67.168.137.125 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Viewing figures

There are two general sources of viewing figures used, and they aren't measuring the same thing. Should we really be putting the initial viewing figures before replacing them with the final ones later? It looks really misleading as the most recent episodes have significantly lower viewing figures than the earlier ones, due to the different source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.100 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Filming Blocks

Anyone got a reference for the production codes? Edgepedia (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Another point, could someone subsitute 'Episode 8' for 'Let's Kill Hitler'? We know the name now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.142.146 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language

OK, so can someone explain to me why we should use such desperately unencyclopedic language as, "As Amy is held captive on Demon's Run, the Doctor assembles an army of allies... [cont. p94]" instead of the out-of-universe, "In the mid-series finale ... This episode will feature the return of the..." material which was originally on the page?

Also, if someone could explain to me why Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) considers it a bad idea to follow WP:BRD, I'd be most interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a short summary in a list of episodes. Details, such as mid-series finale, are in the article proper. DonQuixote (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I know that the details are in the article proper. However, that doesn't change the fact that Edokter's 'preferred version' contains material written in an unashamedly in-universe perspective which clearly isn't appropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the episode summary should be a short version of the plot of the episode (100–200 <350 words), not just a list of what characters are going to be in the episode. It's still pretty bad for a summary, but it actually looks just a bit more like a plot description than a character list, and I would say more encyclopedic. On a side note the out-of-universe is mostly to have real world information and avoid WP:PLOT, plot sections usually are in-universe, adding "In this episode" etc. before the summary doesn't actually change anything and is more fluff than anything WP:Real world is for. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"In the mid-series finale..." is a fairly important production detail and not merely 'fluff' IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That bit could probably be added without too much fuss. DonQuixote (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't do it because Edokter very responsibly forced me to the brink of 3RR, but I'd very much support someone else doing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but |ShortSummary= is for the plot, not production info (or guest list, songs played, etc). Not really against what's on the page now (although the entire summary should be rewritten, and turned into an actual summary), but I don't really see how adding "In the mid-series finale" improves the summary. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
But who actually says, "It's for the plot!!!!!" – because the manual of style seems to suggest otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And were exactly does WP:MOS say that the plot section should not be for plot information? Because WP:MOSTV says "a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section" (and talks about production, reception info etc. in there respective sections) and Template:Episode list says "A short 100-300 word summary of the episode. Make summaries specific to that episode (as in, a description that would normally not be confused with another episode)." Since when is the plot section of the episode not for the plot anymore? Xeworlebi (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And were exactly does WP:MOS say that the plot section should not be for plot information? Try reading my question again. I am disputing your assertion that it is 'meant to be' a plot section at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 09:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Then my answer still stands. The template doc says it should be and WP:MOSTV says as much as well. There's nothing on WP:MOS that says it is not. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still slightly unclear as to why you think it is a bad idea to include the information that A Good Man Goes to War is the mid-series finale. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it simply doesn't add anything towards the plot. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So no objections if I add it in then? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
(←) Add what? Edokter already added the "In this mid-series finale" back, like half a day ago. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that – I'd seen his huffy edit-summary and assumed it was just more disruption of his usual sort, rather than something actually helpful! Pleasantly surprised. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Title Sequence section

Not only asking why this exists, but also why it describes the non-British version of the titles. 86.166.203.105 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It probably shouldn't be here. It could, instead, be mentioned in Doctor Who in Canada and the United States like the Howard Da Silva narrations. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I've moved it to the appropriate article with some trimming. Probably needs a little copyediting, though. DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Call for copyeditor received and acted upon. IMO, just needed a little cleaning up to cover for the trimmed text. Please let me know if you have any questions/objections to my edits; although I'm an old hand at copyediting, I'm relatively new at doing more than what is considered more than "minor edits" on Wikipedia, especially on a subject with as...passionate and Most Interested as Doctor Who, so I'm more than happy to receive constructive criticism and moderately-gentle instruction--Sherlockspock (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comic Con Preview Edit Request

The brief run-down of the Comic Con, second-half of Series 6 preview states the TARDIS seems to crash into the Reichstag. From viewing the trailer, this is incorrect, as the building appears rather to be Hitler's New Rich Chancellery, which was designed by Albert Speer, heavily damaged by Allied bombing and Soviet artillery, and destroyed in the aftermath of the Second World War. Bloop Could someone please alter this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich6th (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody add the Tardis Wikia to the external links? http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Series_6_(Doctor_Who) 173.174.212.164 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's on the Doctor Who page, but not any of the individual series pages. So I doubt it will be added here. Sorry. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Second Half of Series 6 Return Date

Even though the BBC haven't yet announced it, BBC America have announced that Doctor Who will return August 27th. Would it be safe to assume that it will be a same day broadcast in the UK? After all, it is a Saturday and the first half premiered on the same day in the US and UK too. If not perhaps the date could be included somewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.140.131 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if someone chiming in to support this date is needed or not, but I watched a rerun of the Series 3 episode "Utopia" today (2&nbsppm to 3&nbsppm PDT) on BBC America, which included a trailer for Series 6B. It ended with a title card indicating August 27th as the premiềre date, so it would seem the US, at least, is seeing Doctor Who return earlier than September, as was first indicated when the audience learned Series 6 would have a "summer hiatus".--Sherlockspock (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm kind of confused as to why all of the air dates have "(US)" next to them. Surely the UK air date is the most important thing as it'll be the first airing of any of the episodes? Also, the first seven episodes don't have that so it looks a bit strange. Isn't it better to wait until the BBC confirm the UK air dates before putting any up? 86.161.32.94 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As it say above, the only announced dates so far are the US dates on BBC America. They're worth posting because BBC America and the BBC broadcast the episodes concurrently, but it needs to be clear the source is solely for the American broadcast dates until such time as the BBC confirms their dates. Drmargi (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the BBC have confirmed both the dates for "Let's Kill Hitler" and "Night Terrors" on their programme information pages as being the 27th and 3rd respectively, why do these episodes still have "(US and UK)"/"(US)" next to them? Surely the location is irrelevant due to the UK, Canada and America all getting a same day broadcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.197.40 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any BBC UK dates after "Let's Kill Hitler", or any reference that the UK, Canada and America all getting a same day broadcast for the later episodes. Can you help? Edgepedia (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Found a BBC press release for "Night Terrors" just now. Edgepedia (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If the BBC have confirmed the airdates for "Let's Kill Hitler" and "Night Terrors", as they have done here and here (references already in article) then the "(UK and US)" should be removed. We only specify the country if it airs outside the UK first. Can you stop reverting my edit now? Pdb781 (talk) 1:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The location is irrelevant. It's just meant to be the date the episode first aired on television. Paul237 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Req: subject/verb agreement

The sentence, "The trio arrive at an hotel where the layout of the rooms keep changing." should read, "The trio arrive at an hotel where the layout of the rooms keeps changing." (with an 's' on "keep"), or "The trio arrive at an hotel where the room layouts of the rooms keep changing." (with an 's' on "layout"). I haven't seen the episode, so I don't know which is more appropriate. Though if the latter is correct, the sentence should probably be reworded for simplicity and ease (e.g., "where the room layouts keep changing" or "where the rooms' layouts keep changing").

Optionally, use "a hotel" instead of "an hotel". 70.112.33.102 (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit protection Request: Critical Reception

Have written the below critical reception review for this page and require protection from unfair editing - it was just now reposted and should not be completely removed without discussion. Formely had this on "eleventh doctor" page and accept this error on my part. However this article is now in the correct section and contains nothing but appropriately sourced facts. Please comment here to help improve the article INSTEAD of deleting it all.

-- article text -- Although Matt Smith has been praised extensively for his protrayal of The Doctor since assuming the role, Season 6 and to a slightly lesser extent season 5 have been extensively critisised by fans that feel Steven Moffats writing and approach to the series has demonstrated a distinct "make it up as he goes" attitude[51] . This view has gained significant momentum following the episodes "Let's Kill Hitler" and "The Wedding of River Song" in which characters ('mels' pond) or plot devices (tesselecta-doctor) were seemingly 'stuck in' at the last minute to make sence out of an overly open ended or (in the case of the doctor's death) impossible plot-line[52] [53] [54].

Furthermore, it is felt that Moffat overuses "attention grabbing" initially exciting but ultimately predictable and repetitive storylines and plot devices (such as having 3 regenerations and 2 "deaths of the doctor" in a single season), just to get ratings, and that he then closes up the plot far too early and in an anti-climactic manner leaving fans with a slightly bitter aftertaste and setting nothing up for future head writers to draw from - something which has always been a fundamental aspect of Dr who.[55] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Doctor 69 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, this is a slanted presentation of your opinion of the Doctor, not that of the critics you cite. I've read all three articles cited, and none of them remotely support the conclusions you've drawn. If you don't like the current Doctor, fine. But find an appropriate venue for such statements, such as the comments pages of one or more of the sites you misinterpret. Here is not the place. Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This editor submits that the ideal that the presentation is slanted is a biased view on the part of Drmargi! The reason for re-posting is because you guys are simply removing it as opposed to changing and this seems alot like "sweeping the issue under the rug" because you dont want to deal with it. Dr. Who fans everywhere are complaining about these issues with currnt storylines and if it is not publicly acknowledged moffat will feel under no obligation to get his act together! Critical receptions CAN be negative as well as positive and this editor asks for help to round out his review whilst retaining the issues raised. Furthermore, this editor asks for the opinion of other editors involved with this page before final decions are made by dmargi — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Doctor 69 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to climb up on the cross and attempt to cast me in the role of final arbiter of edits, but it doesn't make it so. You had roughly six editors remove your edit for the same reasons as I cite, and at least one or two more (including WP:SYNTH) on the page for the Eleventh Doctor, so my opinions are hardly new. You are taking three positive reviews, extracting fairly neutral and relatively minor observations about plot devices, synthesizing them with a healthy dose of your own opinion and presenting it as critical opinion. Trouble is, even cursory reading of the three sources you cite make clear they say nothing approaching what you contend they do. Your startling lack of accuracy alone is sufficient reason for your edit to be removed, in toto. Drmargi (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No cross my friend, Just confusion as there are no other editors comming on here to support this claim and also no unbiased panel on wikipedia that could arbitrate this disagreement appropriatly (another failing of the review process here) - However i'll conceed it since it would be pointless for you to make it up. I have limited time here today so i will offer some exerts from the Den of Geek reference (admittedly out of context without the rest of the review but several on here do the same) and subsequent fan comments (yes we DO read the fan comments below if we want to appreciate the full balanced review of the episode) that support the view that the review wasnt overly positive
from the review itself - "I can’t say that I loved The Wedding Of River Song, although I did like it (and it had some corking lines)" "But as a series finale (which it didn't feel like it was for the most part), and as a complete episode in its own right, I found it bumpy. At the end of a series run as strong as this one, that’s a disappointment".
From fan comments - "Was it just me or didn't this really have the feel of season finales of previous years? As with previous SM reveals, it just felt rushed, in a 'oh by the way, this is how the Doctor survived' kind of way. If anything, the whole River Song things kind of done now so lets all move on. We now have the 'question' thing to flog to death next year but there's always hope that SM will take his time and think this story arc through." "I think that's the first time since New Who began that I've been disappointed by a series finale. It didn't have the feel of one; it was quite fun for the first half, but by the end it was just insipid, and the way he escaped seemed so...easy." "I think the plot could have been improved if the finale was a double. The whole think seemed to be building up to the doctor's death then just tacked on his survival as a 5 minute epilogue. With a double they could have killed him off then cut to credits, leaving the audience hanging for just a week, then given a deeper, layered explanation rather than "YAY! It was the tessalecta all along!" THE END" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.224.247 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

A new (to the article) and his/her IP are attempting to add a section on critical reception designed to present his/her personal opinion of the Eleventh Doctor. It lacks any sort of balance, the cited sources are misused and misinterpreted in order to "support" the points made, and then we've got the problems with spelling and capitalization. The editor previously attempted to insert this edit in the article on the Eleventh Doctor, where it appears he came close to a WP:3RR violation in his attempt to force the edit. I've reverted, and suggested he/she discuss rather than forcing the edit. Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This editor (The Doctor 69) recognises that he is new to editing, does not completely understand the process and cannot get everything right first time. Also He recognises the error in previous posts to an inappropriate page. However, this editor also recognises the need for a "critical reception" section on this page and has provided what he believes to be an unbiased review of curret issues with the writing of season 5-6. Further edits are welcomed to highlight the positive aspects of the season but the more critical aspects of this review will not be "swept under the rug" by editors expressing their personal opionion of the new dr who seasons.
To sumarise, This editor feels his review is not as unalanced and 'personal' as portrayed by Drmargi and that further discussion on the review performed before the whole article is simply reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Doctor 69 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Given you are new to this, by your own admission, let me be a bit of help. First, once an edit is reverted, you talk about it. Your history, and that of the IP you sometimes use, suggest you prefer to edit warring and have previously been warned for it. Please read WP:BRD for assistance. To your credit, you did use the talk page this time, but still reverted again, which is edit warring on your part. I've also placed a warning on your talk page, so you have no "I'm new" excuse for further reverts. Second, critical reception sections can be included in an article, but must be both balanced, reflecting positive and negative reviews to the extent possible and must report what the critics said. You cite three positive reviews in an attempt to support what are clearly your own negative opinions of Moffat's writing. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. This edit is a thinly disguised attempt to place your own opinions in the article, which is not acceptable (see WP:OR). You've had enough feedback on the content of the edit, not just the placement, to know it is both controversial and in opposition to a range of Wikipedia policies. It also needs to be heavily copy-edited just to reach the standard encyclopedic writing. I suggest you step back and find a way to craft a balance presentation of the critical reception to the sixth season. Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
So, since by my own admission I am new to this and since your admission that "once an edit is reverted, you talk about it" may I ask why I was not contacted to do this or told how? Furthermore, how is one editor (yourself) able to revert anothers contributions continuously without reprisal leading to what you call "warring" It would seem that an article left on the page but flagged as "in press" would be a better way to handle edits - particulary by newbies to wiki-editing who have every right to get involved with a public domain resource". In short, you need a more unbiased peer review and screeng setup as is used for proper publications in High impact journals.
However - lets now discuss the below article
Although Matt Smith has been praised extensively for his protrayal of The Doctor since assuming the role, Season 6 and to a slightly lesser extent season 5 have been extensively critisised by fans that feel Steven Moffats writing and approach to the series has demonstrated a distinct "make it up as he goes" attitude[51] . This view has gained significant momentum following the episodes "Let's Kill Hitler" and "The Wedding of River Song" in which characters ('mels' pond) or plot devices (tesselecta-doctor) were seemingly 'stuck in' at the last minute to make sence out of an overly open ended or (in the case of the doctor's death) impossible plot-line[52] [53] [54].
Furthermore, it is felt that Moffat overuses "attention grabbing" initially exciting but ultimately predictable and repetitive storylines and plot devices (such as having 3 regenerations and 2 "deaths of the doctor" in a single season), just to get ratings, and that he then closes up the plot far too early and in an anti-climactic manner leaving fans with a slightly bitter aftertaste and setting nothing up for future head writers to draw from - something which has always been a fundamental aspect of Dr who.[55]
If you look up each of the references, you will see they are either from proper sources (the guardian, the telegraph) or personal opinion blogs (Den of geek etc). Both are useful and accurate resources for determining public opinion, accepted by the world psychology organisation (WPO). As you will see, they either document the harshly negative public reaction to the new series or they show comments by fan who are clearly not impressed at these seasons for the reasons I have stated in the text above. So what exactly is wrong with them.
It is agreed that the piece in general is slanted towards a more negative review - but hey, thats how seasons 5 and 6 are actually being thought of by the fans. In an unbiased review good = good and bad = bad. If it would make the article more acceptable I could certainly try and add in some positive aspects - but I can guarantee they will balance out the bad points!
Further advice on the writing of this section is requested by editors who are not dmargi (apologies but if it all comes from you it WILL be a biased one sided review through no fault of your own). I am happy to take official responsibility for writing this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Doctor 69 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi The Doctor 69, my advice is to start with the sources. I've taken a look at the ones you added to the article, and made notes one each one.

  • McCormick,Neil (30 August 2011). "Doctor Who: they're making it up as they go along". The Telegraph. Retrieved 3 December. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Telegraph's chief rock music critic wonders if Moffat has a plan or is making it up as he goes along.
Hence this reference backs up my conclusion that fans feel moffat is "making it up as he goes" - included in initial piece.
Coming to an conclusion is original research, or OR has it's sometimes called here. See WP:OR. Also, in this case how does one's man's opinion show what fans feel?
The series ended simplier than expected. Calling it a reboot, he expects the Doctor to will now go under cover. Compares Rory to Kenny from South Park.
This idea that the season end was much simpler than expected indirectly supports my conclusion that the teselecta plot device was seemingly "stuck in" at the last minute to simplify an otherwise impossible storyline (Impossible in that We - the fans - knew that Steven Moffat couldnt kill off the doctor from the start and wanted to see how he would "get out of that one") I accept that there are possibly better references out there to support this concludion and will look for a better one.
See above comment about OR.
After the showing of "A Good Man Goes to War" when River Song's identity was revealed, reactions were mixed, although it appeared that the UK fan community had accepted it. However Moffet recieved a death threat, two demands for his immediate resignation, and two suggesting that he kill himself.
I hesitated to use this reference as i dislike the whole concept of the death threats (Steven Moffats writing for Dr who may be poor but not THAT bad!!) However it does support my conclusion that the "melody pond' arc was considered badly handled by moffat/writers and that the "mels" character was "stuck in" at the last minute to make sence out of things as with the previous conclusion
Err, the piece actually comes to another conclusion, considering the number of threats low.
Thought "Let's Kill Hitler" was fun, had snappy dialogue, Alex Kingston on blistering form and has a scene with the Doctor, River Song and a banana that captures the zip, the confidence and outright skill of modern Doctor Who.
Although this review was on the whole positive, they make several points regarding plot holes, plots left hanging for too long and simplified ending which supports my conclusions pointing out the negative aspects of the series. Furthermore, fans comments are below this review 50% of which at least are negative. These comments also address and support the conclusions that the show has recieved considerable negative reception from fans as it shows fan opinions!
Comments posted on pieces such as these are not reliable sources.
Blogs are not reliable sources.
This reference was admittedly sourced with some haste. However, in what way are blogs which (as with Den of Geek reviews) have fan opinions posted below not considered reliable evidance. We are seeing the opinions of the fans first hand, more importantly we are seeing the opinions of fans that care enough about the issues to post - hence they are a great source of primary opinion evidance and support this aspect of my edit

I reformatted your use of the {{Citation}} template. I think someone has already said that your comments above are not supported by these sources. You appear to me to be of the opinion that Series 5 and Series 6 are thought of negatively by 'fans', but these sources don't support this, and like the show. Edgepedia (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edgepedis - firstly my sincerest thanks for a comment that is both informative and also helpful towards creating a good bit of work from this. I believe I may have a reason for previous disagreements
As an academically published author my mandate is to review lots of sources for specific information and to form conclusions that are unbiased and yet directed towards the major point I wish to convey. I realise now that this more scientific and academic branch of writing is not employed by wikipedia and will work on this for my next edit. I have edited each review point above to suggest how it fits with my conclusion and have conceeded the point where applicable. Would highligting some positive receptions and merging my previous work with these positive receptions in this article help retain balance - and get it past review?
I'm not around a lot here, and most of the time I'm just passing by. There may be other editors who are here more often. However, if I was to give you advice I would say work here by looking at reliable sources (see WP:RS) [see the page linked the answers to your question as to why blogs and forums are not reliable sources], then summerize these sources without what we call original research (see WP:OR - it can mean more than some people think) and from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Having a conclusion and trying to use sources to justify that conclusion rarely works (and it can be very hard work). Edgepedia (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've found a few reviews of the entire series as well as some comments on the series as a whole, and I'm mapping a critical reception section for when I tackle the article. Not quite sure when that'll be. Personally, my only criticism of the series was the fact the stand-alone episodes in the second half as well as the fact that almost everything was already figured out sort of changed the pacing...but funnily enough I haven't seen any critic that has commented on that. I loved most of the series, the characters, and finale, but I just report what the critics say in the reception sections (see for example series 5). Glimmer721 talk 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_6/Archive_1&oldid=1216222227"