Talk:The Rebel Flesh

Not ready

I still don't think this is ready to be an article just yet. A cast list inside an infobox isn't really enough. –anemoneprojectors– 22:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Eye-patch lady

I think it's inappropriate to label the fact that the Eye-patch lady has appeared three times as original research. Yes, the only way one could check this is to count, but that applies to so many things. It's not original research to say that the human hand has five fingers. It's not original research to say that "The Pen" is the twentieth episode of Seinfeld. These things are common sense – and WP:CALC would seem to apply. (I am, of course, assuming that nobody has counted a different number of appearances from the Eye-patch lady.) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag was applied to the fact that the doctor is checking, for the third time, to see if Amy is pregnant. But I still agree with you. –anemoneprojectors– 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I counted, firstly from memory but then by also checking the previous 4 articles. I didn't believe it would be contested (not much margin of error) and I've found no sources as of yet. I appreciate your support TreasuryTag and agree there are so many things submitted here and on the rest of Wikipedia that have to be left to common sense.~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I'm in two minds as to whether the Eye Patch Lady needs a mention in continuity every time she appears. Perhaps once she has a more substantial role in an episode we should leave it to that article and Day of the Moon, with both mentioning the other episodes she appears in as well? U-Mos (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Back after a few days) ... TT, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. When counting episodes, you can refer to a sourced list of episodes and count them. In this case you can say that an event happened at these times in the episodes; if challeged you could list them. It's far more difficult to say it didn't happen at any other time; this requires care looking at the source. For example, would you view counting how many times a phrase appears in book original research?

However, I'm not too worried in this case, but is it being the third time really signifcant? Surely that it is a recurring theme is what we are trying to express here. Edgepedia (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Flesh

Should the Flesh have its own page, given the prominance within this two part story (especially towards the end of the second part)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.231.64 (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens should be adequate for now. DonQuixote (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Err...The Flesh...Autons & Nestene Consciousness. Is it only me or is there some sort of connection here?82.0.25.104 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Lance T.

It's only you. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copy-edited as I've gone along. Please feel free to revert anything you are not happy with, or where I have changed the information so that it is incorrect. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "The episode was filmed in the winter of 2010": It is usually better to specify a month, as readers in the southern hemisphere have a different idea of what this means.

• Changed to "late months". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Prosthetics were used to create the Gangers' facial features, and doubles were cast for the actors" (I copy-edited the first part of the sentence): I'm not sure what this is trying to say. The doubles wore the prosthetics? The prosthetics were created for the doubles? Or doubles were cast to allow the Gangers to appear alongside their actor?

• I changed it to "Prosthetics were used to create the Gangers' facial features, while doubles of the actors were used for scenes in which a character and his or her Ganger were both in a scene, but did not both show their face." If you can think of an easier/more consise way to put this, please go ahead. I'm not sure if I can say it in shorter words without it being unclear. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "achieved an "excellent" Appreciation Index of 85": Although I know that this is what 85 signifies, I'm not sure this is the place to say so as it appears that this article is rating 85 as excellent. I think just give the score here and save the rest for the main body.

• Done. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "had not developed enough being only the first part": Had not developed enough as a story? Had not developed because it was a first part? Not developed enough for a first part? Again, this needs to be clarified.

• I clarified that it was the story the reviewers felt was not developed yet. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The computer-generated effects used for one scene was widely disapproved of.": I've a bit of a problem with this. Unless I've miscounted, the main body gives two reviews which say this. I don't think this is enough to justify "widely disapproved of".

• Maybe more mentioned it, but I changed it to "a couple of". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot

• "As the Doctor (Matt Smith) continues the unresolved TARDIS scan on the possible pregnancy of his companion Amy Pond (Karen Gillan)...": I'm not sure this adequately summarises it. Someone unfamiliar with the story-arc will not really understand what this means.

• I've removed it; it's in "Continuity" anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Solar tsunami is linked to solar flare. Is this made explicit in the story?

• No, I removed it. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overlinking: skeleton crew

• Removed. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The crew controls": Are we treating crew as singular or plural? I would have thought plural so "control" would be better. Also "the crew awakens".

• Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The crew controls the Gangers from special control harnesses, operating the hazardous environment of the factory via the disposable bodies": A few points here: close repetition of "control", how can you operate a hazardous environment (do you mean operate in, or operate something else), and I think the point that the bodies are disposable would be better made earlier.

• Removed second instance of "control" as it doesn't really describe the harness anyway, and changed it to "in the hazardous environment". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "away by losing their facial similarities and turn pale-white": I seem to remember they did not lose their facial similarities, they merely turned pale-white.

• True, there was no major difference. Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "who was replaced by a Ganger avatar prior to the beginning of the series": My understanding (possibly wrong as I'm no expert) was that it was unclear precisely when she was replaced.

• In "A Good Man Goes to War" the Doctor states that she was replaced "sometime before America," which was the first two episodes. (I've also added this third-part source. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Her identity is revealed in "The Almost People" and she plays a larger part in "A Good Man Goes to War".": Did she not appear again at the end of the series?

• I added "The Wedding of River Song". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing

• "but bailed out

• Changed to "withdrew". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "He wanted them to appear relatable": I'm not sure "relatable" works here.

• Added "to the audience". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "In the early drafts of the script, there was a problem distinguishing the characters from their duplicates, and Graham and the production crew worked to make it more rational.": How? At the moment, the explanation seems to be implied in the following sentence, but maybe no such thing was intended.

• In the interview Graham says, "The early drafts of the script were unintelligible. There were so many copies of people running around the place. We were sitting there with magic markers saying, "Is this a ganger person?" It got confusing, so we had to do a lot of rationalising of the script." I changed the sentence to "In the early drafts of the script, there were "so many copies of people running around the place" which made the story too confusing, so Graham and the production crew worked to make it more rational." If there's anything else you should be changed, please let me know. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Filming and effects

• "The doubles were required to be the same height for camera height purposes, and wore wigs and other make-up to allow the back of their head to appear the same.": Surely all doubles need to be like this and such an explanation is unnecessary.

• Removed. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The episode also contains some music from the real world.": Really not sure here about this phrasing. What other world is there? I understand the intention, but I don't think this is the way. Maybe "Several pop tracks were used" or "Contemporary music formed part of the music for the episode".

• Changed to "The episode also contains several tracks of contemporary music." Glimmer721 ^talk 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• What other music was used in the story?

• Well, there's the songs on Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 6 (a source), but I don't see the point in adding it unless there's commentary from Murray Gold on why he chose the music, what moods he was trying to convey, etc. Doctor Who usually doesn't use contemporary music and so when it does it is pointed out by reviewers. I also think it gives credit to the original artists. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• We could at least say then that the music was composed by Murray Gold and any other snippets there might be about the composition. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I assume "Cast notes" are common in all Doctor Who articles. If so, fine, but I have to say I don't think it is the best. Why focus in an encyclopaedia article on actors' previous Doctor Who appearances? Why should these be distinguished from other performances? If someone wants to know what else an actor did, they can follow the link. And why is it relevant that an actor previously appeared in Life on Mars?

• Yes, it typially is, although I'm going to use this as an excuse to get rid of it as I'm not a fan...Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say casts notes are common in Doctor Who articles, and I *am* a fan of it, should I just add it back? Clearly the GA review does not call for it's removal (in full context) although it does question it. Could we perhaps discuss this more? At a Doctor Who level (as against this article) as it's a general feature of Doctor Who articles, not just this article. Jasonfward (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would accept a "casting" section as encyclopaedic, but not a fairly trivial "these people have already appeared in Dr Who section". This comment made me check, and I notice that the Dr Who FAs do not have such a trivial section, nor did any of the other episode articles which I fairly randomly clicked on. A few do have casting information, but related to why actors were cast, not their previous history in the programme. With this in mind, I do not believe it is standard in Dr Who articles and therefore do not believe this section would be acceptable in a GA on the grounds of criterion 3b. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception

• "It received an Appreciation Index of 85, considered "excellent"": By who?

• It's not really by anyone; it's just that 85 and over is considered an excellent score on the AI scale and indicates the show/episode performed well. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I imagine that it would be either the BBC or BARB who considered this to be "excellent". I tried a little digging around but found nothing "official" which suggests this, and I'm not sure how reliable the Doctor Who News Page would be for something like this. I don't doubt for a minute that it is true, but I would like a stronger source. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I added that it is the BBC as they are the ones who interpret the scores to rate their programs. As for the source, it remains the only place to find AIs and has been used in GAs such as The Fires of Pompeii, The Impossible Astronaut, The Curse of the Black Spot, The Time of Angels, Amy's Choice (Doctor Who), and Victory of the Daleks. Furthermore, it has been used in the FAs of Doomsday (Doctor Who), Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), and The Stolen Earth. It was formerly known as Outpost Gallifrey, which was used in GAs such as Planet of the Ood. User:Sceptre has often pointed out why this is reliable so you may wish to discuss it with him.Glimmer721 ^talk 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough. For the record, I think something from the BBC or the media itself may be better, and I'm such material does exist somewhere as there is similar stuff out there: for example here and there is something here which mentions that 90 is considered "exceptional". However, no matter and I'm sure that the source is reliable enough, I just felt something more "independent" would be an improvement. Not a problem as far as passing this goes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "as well as the advantage taken with the location filming for the monastery" How does this relate to Smith's "restrained" performance?

• It doesn't. "As well as" does not mean they are related; in means "in addition to" or "and also". But the way that sentence is worded is weird, so I changed it to "and also praised the..." Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Is this a reliable source?

• It's been used in some GAs but it is easily replaced here by other sources, which I have done.

• Ref 18 does not take you to the information cited.

• Fixed; the website recently went through a redesign and so the URLs have changed. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any written sources which may give more information? This seems a little light on details, and I wondered if there was a guide to the series in a magazine? If one hasn't been produced yet, maybe the information could be added later.

• I don't have access to Doctor Who Magazine being in America (as far as I know), but they usually produce "Special Editions". As far as I know the Series 6 one has not come out yet. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Spot checks otherwise fine.

• Links: Checklinks shows that refs 16 and 23 change subdomain.

• I don't know what that means and the links lead directly to the correct page...IGN always seems to do that (#16 has been fixed when I replaced it with the new URL). I have checked to make sure it has the same URL. How do I fix this? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything else looks good and although I've left quite a list, I don't think there are any major obstacles. Should have no problems passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, I acutally perfer long lists. Thank you for your time! I've everything and let me know what you think about the AI and the music. I don't know what to do with the "change subdomain" thing. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied above: one sticking point on AI and a potential sticking point if the Cast notes section returns. I will pass once these final issues are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied above. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And the subdomain thing happens sometimes and I'm not too sure why or what is supposed to be done. Again, not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just curious here...

In terms of Plot: In this Episode the Doctor is VERY concerned about these Gangers being Living Entities obviously worthy of his Protection and yet at the end of the episode he quite callously destroys one that thinks it's Amy. Shouldn't this contradiction be commented on, or at least mentioned in the Plot Synopsis?

142.254.34.185 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops... this was me... forgot to sign-in.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

One more oops... My comment really shoulda been for the next episode. My bad. albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)