Talk:Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS

Telescope

Regarding continuity - wasn't the telescope seen in the background in the room Clara passes just before she sees the swimming pool the one from Tooth & Claw? I checked a still from that episode and it looks identical. Not sure how it ended up on the TARDIS, though! 71.87.14.35 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I have just looked at stills from this episode and "Tooth and Claw", and I think that this is not the actual one that we see in "Tooth and Claw" but remember that the TARDIS has an architectural reconfiguration system. So this system could create an identical representation of the telescope. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was "bold" and went ahead and added it. :) 71.87.14.35 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have to compare stills, then it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the BBC. They probably just reused the prop/CGI still. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is the same telescope as in Tooth and Claw, I think the reference can be added in 'Continuity' section of this episode. Danicela (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cracks in the universe?

Was the crack that formed in the TARDIS (the time rift) the same shape as the ones that were spreading throughout the universe previously? I did think it was, and please note I'm not asking for the sake of finding out, but that it may be included as continuity in the article if it is. –anemoneprojectors– 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was my first thought, but on the second watch, the crack lacks the upside-down volcano shape that the theme'd one did. We'd need an RS to make that connection if that is the case, though, for continuity --MASEM (t) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's different then it's different. There won't be an RS for that. Thanks :-) –anemoneprojectors– 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot length

The plot section for this is too long, and every time I personally try to shrink it (in preview editing) I keep running into the same problem that it seems impossible to shrink down. It's not that it is a complex plot but that with the separation of Doctor/Clara for much of the episode, you can run into a lot of meanwhile, plus the sudden thrust of the Tricky android plot alters things, and then explaining the entire scene at the Eye of Harmony and the room after it just get rather difficult. I wish I could determine what the episode's "theme" was (as with Hide, where it's the love/ghost story thing) so I know what are the more important details and what parts to gloss over.

If anyone has any ideas, that would be great, but we do need to address this plot. It doesn't need to be this long. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think we need to describe a substantial part of Clara in one paragraph, and then a substantial part of the Doctor/brothers in another, which should help avoid the "meanwhile" and short paragraphs. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical consensus

Can we get a consensus on this? I've been trying to keep "generally positive" alone out because it's not true and I'm trying to keep the article balanced and neutral. There is certainly a wide range (from five stars to three to one and a half, and that's only the ones with star ratings) so would something like "varied" work better? I used it back in "Vincent and the Doctor" and so I'm wondering in addition what the wording should be on that one. (I generally hate making consensus statements, since the vast and varied fandom means that just about every episode has its praisers and its detractors.) Glimmer721 ^talk 00:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Quite a bit of close paraphrasing and some copyvio

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I've provided notes below which should help address the issues

Review comments

Prose

• The episode was watched by 6.5 million viewers in the United Kingdom and received mixed to positive reviews. This sentence appears twice in the lead. I'd say to remove the first occurrence.
• Wow, someone was paying attention to the MOS:TVPLOT limit of 400 words.
• Ossify may be a tough word for a general audience, though we should probably use that if it's used in the episode. Perhaps link ossify, or perhaps pipe to calcification or heterotopic ossification if one of those is more appropriate.
• Websites which produce and host original content, which are effectively online magazines, can have italicized titles. So with Digital Spy, if referring to it as a company, it is non-italic; but if referring to it as a website, it should be italicised. Similarly with IGN.
• with footage of the scoop also being filmed at Roath Lock What is "the scoop"? This isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. rephrased
• Do you think there should be a brief description or some context as to what the Eye of Harmony is? wikilinked
• Coleman was ill on the 17 so scenes featuring This is Coleman's first mention in the body of the article. For clarity, we should give her full name, linked, and note that she is an actor.

Referencing & verifiability

• BBC
  • This was used in two citation templates; I named it "BBCmediacentre" and removed the latter template.
• "4thdimension" BBC
  • This now appears to be at the url https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/38VTVY7JJt4tVrkhQV6MjjF/the-fourth-dimension
  • The Eye of Harmony is seen in its entirety for the first time in this episode. Not in source. I'm not sure if this can be simply verified from primary sources, as it would require watching every previous episode of Doctor Who (to make certain this is the first time). section removed
  • the one Donna Noble used in "The Unicorn and the Wasp", and the one Amy looks into while alone in the TARDIS in "The Lodger" This is not verified by the source. These episodes and Donna aren't mentioned at all. section removed
  • Some close parapharsing:
    • When the Encyclopedia Gallifreya 'leaks' this is taken directly from the source. Is "leaks" from the episode itself? Suggest paraphrasing. section removed
    • When Clara is exploring through the rooms of the TARDIS, she finds a magnifying glass, possibly the one that the Doctor used in the console room in "The Power of Three" [...] as well as an umbrella that looks very similar to the one used by the Seventh Doctor in Paradise Towers. is very similar to the source: When Clara explores one of the TARDIS’ many rooms she finds [...] a magnifying glass – possibly the one used by the Doctor in the console room in The Power of Three – and an umbrella that looks very similar to the Seventh Doctor’s brolly in Paradise Towers.

      Suggest paraphrase: While travelling through the TARDIS, Clara discovers a magnifying glass, which may have been employed by the Doctor in "The Power of Three", Donna Noble in "The Unicorn and the Wasp", and Amy in "The Lodger". Clara also comes across an umbrella that may have been used by the Seventh Doctor in Paradise Towers. section removed

    • The read-through for "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" took place at Roath Lock studios on 29 August 2012, during the production of "The Snowmen". This is essentially the same as the source, with the order of the clauses rearranged. Suggest: It had its read-through on 29 August 2012 at Roath Lock studios, following the day's filming for "The Snowmen".
• "DWM454" Doctor Who Magazine
  • Good
• "Shannon"
  • I suspect that it would be better to cite directly to the sources this source used, where applicable.
  • The episode was originally supposed to be the twelfth episode in place of "The Crimson Horror". The lead says it's the 10th episode, and it's followed by "The Crimson Horror" which took its place as the 12th episode, so what happened to the 11th episode? The source says "Journey To The Centre Of The TARDIS, it was intended to be the sixth episode of Doctor Who's spring run." The fall run was 5 episodes, so 5+6=11, right? Should this be 11th instead of 12th? changed to eleventh
  • Close paraphrasing:
    • Moffat disliked this idea and suggested replacing the teenagers with a salvage team instead. Compare to source: Moffat disliked this idea, and so Thompson suggested replacing the students with a salvage team. Suggest: changed the encounter to a salvage crew when Moffat objected.
    • In earlier versions of the script, Clara came across a room containing the leftover belongings of all of the Doctor's previous companions but this was reduced to the scene in which she finds one of the young Amy Pond's model, TARDISes and the Doctor's cot. Compare to source: In early versions, Clara came across a chamber containing the leftover belongings of all of the Doctor's previous companions; this was eventually simplified to the storeroom in which she finds one of the young Amy Pond's model TARDISes (from Let's Kill Hitler) and the Doctor's cot.

      Suggest: Also changed was a scene in which Clara explores a room of discarded possessions from earlier companions; this was condensed to her discovery of Amy Pond's toy TARDIS and the Doctor's cot. good smoothing of my suggestion

    • The first draft for the episode was completed by June 2012. close to the original: Thompson completed his first draft in late June 2012. Suggest: A preliminary script for the episode was finished in late June 2012.
    • "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" was made on its own as Block Seven of the production schedule. Worded exactly as source. What exactly does it mean? Perhaps replace with something like: It was produced alone as the seventh block of the filming calendar. I'd have preferred to change it a little more but I'm okay if those terms are important to preserve.
    • Filming of Cardiff Castle posing as the TARDIS library also took place on 11 September. Close to the source: with Cardiff Castle in Cardiff posing as the TARDIS library. Suggest: posing as → substituting for
    • Coleman was ill on 17 September so scenes featuring the console were abandoned in favour of more effects and insert shots Close to the original: abandoned in favour of effects and insert shots. Suggest: The shooting schedule was interrupted on 17&September when Coleman was ill; effects and insert shots were filmed that day. okay
    • The remainder of the console room footage was captured on 24 September. Compare to original: The remainder of the required console room footage was captured on the 24th. Suggest: The last shots of the console room were completed on 24 September. good
• "10tymnk" BBC America
  • Thompson initially intended for the TARDIS to collide with a school trip, and become overrun by teenagers Too close to source: One of Stephen’s original ideas was that the TARDIS would somehow collide with a school trip, and become overrun by teenagers. Suggest: Thompson initially intended for the TARDIS to become invaded by adolescents after encountering a school trip. rephrased
  • This is the first televised Doctor Who adventure to use the word TARDIS in the title. Exact same wording as source. Suggest: It is the first Doctor Who episode to have been broadcast with TARDIS in its title. As it is referenced as a word, TARDIS should either be in italics or double quotes (MOS:WORDSASWORDS).
  • Ashley Walters's character Gregor van Baalen was originally intended to be a cyborg or at least feature cybernetic elements Is the underlined part needed? A cyborg has cybernetic elements, so this seems redundant. I suggest removing the underlined part.
• "Walters" Radio Times – I think they were independent of BBC Magazines by this time, so a secondary source
  • The picture was immediately removed. The source doesn't actually say it was immediately removed, but I suppose the lack of its existence demonstrates this.additional source added
• SFX
  • Verified from archival website; original seems to be dead.
• Barb.co.uk
  • When final ratings were calculated, the figure rose to 6.5 million, the seventh most-watched programme of the week on BBC One. Verified after inputing time frame into website. (2013, April, week of 22–28 Apr.)
• SFX
  • The website seems to have moved but the archive works, verified.
• Doctor Who News
  • It received an Appreciation Index of 85. I'm not sure how reliable this source is, so I added ref "Shannon" to back it up.
• The Guardian
  • noted that the ending would upset fans because it made fun of them "so audaciously" → felt that the ending would upset fans for "audaciously" mocking them
• Digital Spy
  • Verified
• IGN
  • Verified
• Radio Times Patrick Mulkern review
  • Verified
• The Independent
  • Verified from archival copy
• SFX
  • Verified from archival copy
• Daily Telegraph
  • verified from archival copy
• Doctor Who magazine review
  • Changed citation template to {{cite magazine}}, as there was no url for cite web.
  • Offline, AGF
  • I notice that there are a lot of quotations from this source. The quotes total 61 words. Under limited-use rules for quotations, it's recommended to not quote more than 10% of the original. So please check; if the original review is less than 610 words, some of the quotes should be paraphrased or removed. quotations reduced
• I did not notice a source for some of the guest actors. The GA criteria don't require an inline citation in the article, but one of the article's sources should verify the information. Specifically, I'm looking for Ruari Mears, Paul Kasey, Sarah Louise Madison, and Mark Oliver. New source added

Breadth & focus

• I feel like it might go into too much detail with the shooting schedule. This might be resolved a bit with a rewrite for conciseness, but I want to get the paraphrasing done first (copyvio is a higher priority).

Media

Two images, providing encyclopedic context. The first has a fair-use rationale, the second has a CC licence (via Flickr).

Other areas to improve

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

• In the infobox, why are some listed as Actor (Character) and others listed as Actor – Character? Although they are technically separate lists, I feel that it'd look better if the formatting/style was consistent.
• Some editors might use the T-word to describe the Continuity section. I notice that it is all sourced to the BBC, a primary source. It'd be preferable if you could find a reliable secondary source to establish some notability for it (in case someone challenges it in the future). Section removed. Check in the article history before this review date to retrieve it if you find additional sources.
• Morgan Jeffery's review mentions the production values have been stepped up with many dynamic sets "wonderfully realised" – might include to cover that aspect.

General discussion

The article was rife with copyvio and close paraphrasing. In the future, you can check for this using the Earwig tool. You may want to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It's a policy-level matter that has to be addressed, but I'd still rather see close paraphrasing with good sources than a lack of sources. If you're not confident about paraphrasing sources, you can request copy edit of articles at WP:GOCER (specifying a concern of close paraphrasing) prior to GA nomination. To speed things along, I've made paraphrasing suggestions where I spotted problems, so this should be fairly painless.

Otherwise, I feel that the article is pretty good. I'm putting the review "on hold" to give you a few days to address the issues I've noted above. If you disagree with my assessments, I'm open to discussion, and will try to answer any questions you may have. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

All problems have been resolved. @Reidgreg: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT biscuit (talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Confirmed all changes and verified new sources added. The Earwig copyvio score dropped from 38 to 27%, with remaining hits being fair-use quotations and proper names. I did a little additional copy edit.

I left the lead for last and noticed that the second paragraph (which describes the plot) is all one sentence. Can you break that into a couple sentences so that it's easier to read? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Second paragraph in lead broken into sentences.DMT biscuit (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks for your timely responses! Passing GA. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)