# Talk:Forest of the Dead

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)

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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713233601/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&RequestTimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEkEFpEpyFZTPVBQaDt
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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326074410/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo2009.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo2009.html
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)

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

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

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)
No, of course, take your time, I was just reminding bcs pings get lost, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
? DaniloDaysOfOurLives. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
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)

Get well soon. Will take some time, will ping you when done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
DaniloDaysOfOurLives Couldn't find anything more about production, fixed the other issues. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
DaniloDaysOfOurLives, reply? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
I will do it tonight - I am sorry, I was trying to do it right. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ehh, it's fine. Happy birthday, btw! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! And good luck with the review :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

@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)
It's fine, I have been busy too. Take your time, no need to rush yourself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: any update on when you think you might be able to review the GAN? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article has some phrasing issues in places.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Production could do with expansion, but only if the coverage to do so exists.
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
-"The episode also features the death of River Song (Alex Kingston), an archaeologist who has a close relationship with the Doctor, but because of the non-linearity of this partnership, the Doctor in the episode has only just met River." Specify River is a recurring character later in the series

Done
-"a 40% audience share, the highest in Series Four" Is the audience share of the viewership the highest here?

Yes, and it is referenced in the ratings subsection
Please clarify this in the lead, as this can be misinterpreted very easily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't notice the sentence was ambigous. Fixed
-"a moment which IGN stated "rivals any of the great emotional beats in this series" noting their plentifulness." I am very confused by what this sentence is supposed to be saying and why it's relevant to the above image. 

Moved to reception, hadn't paid attention to it
My concern isn't location, but rather how this applies to the image. As it stands, it's really only here for visuals, so it either needs a rationale strengthened (Either by being highlighted by a source) or by some other rationale. If there isn't a justification for the image it may need to be removed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see your point now. Removed.


### Plot
-"where she will be safe as the Doctor fixed the data core." Specify River will be safe. I also feel everything after "safe" isn't too necessary.

Done


### Production
-Could images for some of the filming locations be used? Not sure if any are free to use/have images, but I figured I'd ask as it could visually spruce up the article a bit and help visualize the locations. 

I'll look for them
Could only find one, added it
-This section is a bit small. Have you checked out the BBC Doctor Who website, and the Doctor Who website's stories section? Both have links to some BTS videos you might be able to use, if you haven't used them already.

There is more, but is used on the article for part one. I'll copy some from there (have already used the info from these areas)
Do these behind the scenes videos apply to both parts? If so, then I'd definitely agree with moving some of it here, as some readers may be looking for this episode exclusively and not look between for both parts on information for both episodes. If they have separate videos, then keep the videos relating to Forest of the Dead at this article and not at Silence in the Library's.
The info is also in an official magazine, I used the info from there. This episode's video mostly dealt with the scene of River's death
Expanded


### Broadcast and reception
-"Following the two-parter, Davies said that Moffat (who was succeeding him as showrunner from the next series onwards), brought the best attributes to Doctor Who, such as "intelligence and wit and fears and thrills and dynamism"" Could it be clarified why this relevant? A showrunner saying their writer is good isn't too extraordinary. I know there's significance here, but I feel this should be made apparent in the article.

reworded
-"SFX's review on GamesRadar+" For reference, SFX is an entirely separate publication from GamesRadar, and only uses GamesRadar as a host for their content. SFX's reviews are entirely their own, and should be credited as such. Additionally, credit author if one is listed. If not, then it's not a major concern.

No author listed. And thank you, I was confused about the situation between the two
-""great contrast": both a continuation and something new, shifting away from the monster plot to focus on the parallel world, and "the little girl at the heart of the machine"." I'm very confused what kind of commentary this is supposed to say, and feels like a very heavily paraphrased quote from the review. Could this be reworded or clarified to better express what the author is trying to comment on with this? (Are they praising the plot? The themes?)

reworded, I was trying to list what said things were throughout the ref
-"as she is someone the Doctor is yet to meet but who already knows a lot about him, including his name" We already know this, so it doesn't need to be restated.

quoted, was in the review
I mean even if it's quoted it's primarily restated information, so it doesn't really benefit the reader by being said twice. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
removed in the re-write
-Is that all that can be gleaned from Radio Times? That's a very small amount of commentary.

The actual review was short, as they were doing something like a blog for reviews at the time. I'll add the other review too
Couldn't find any RT review
-"Travis Fickett said that he found his brain "searching for new superlatives"" I'm proud of him but what does this have to do with the episode? 

reworded, superlatives for the episode
-"while also praising Donna and Tate's chops as a dramatic actress" Very opinionated and reads like close paraphrasing. Also acts like Donna and Tate are two different people and not just character and actress.

Will reword
Replaced in the re-write
-Shouldn't the Constellation Award be mentioned in the lead alongside the Hugo?

Will do it
Not as big of a award, I think, so I didn't mention it in the lead
-Did a brief search: Searching "Forest of the Dead" Doctor Who" in Scholar yields quite a few hits, as does Books (Though the latter is less strong). If possible, check if some of these can be added to the article to expand its coverage.

Will check
I added 2 reviews and a top nth episode list, do you still want me to expand it


### Overall
-@DoctorWhoFan91: This article needs some work, but the bulk of the concerns are pretty minor and seem feasible within the scope of a GAN. I understand I suggested some big ones in spots; let me know if I can help with these in order to minimize the work. Let me know if you have any further questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Did the small changes. I'll rewrite the reception section completely as I seem to have made a mess of it. Will add some info from the part 1 article too. Thank you for your review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91: left a few comments on the above. Will respond more on the Reception when you're done rewriting it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Finished everything else, will copy content from "Silence in the Library" for production, and rewrite reception. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Done both, you can check now. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 A few nitpicks:
-I feel the casting info doesn't need to be as detailed given Silence in the Library covers that well enough. I'd shorten down some info on Kingston and Pemberton, and remove the mention of Salmon.
-""found his brain searching for new superlatives"" Still doesn't make much sense since it isn't really commentary. Like, how does this translate to actual commentary of the episode? Does he feel that the episode was very good? Does he feel the episode had so many themes it was indescribable?
-There's a lot of quotes in the Reception. Try paraphrasing a few of these to condense it to the writer's main thoughts (For instance, the AV Club could be rewritten to something like "Keith Philipps praised the episode for its exploration of the relationship between the Doctor and River, as well as its emphasis on the Doctor's character. While he felt the episode was weaker than its first part, he felt it was still a good episode in isolation." Just an example and you don't need to change it (And this example isn't perfect either, but hopefully it helps)
Rest looks good. Once this is done it should be good to go.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Done all. Also condesed the reception section a bit more bcs mostly the same things were brought up in the review, which i mentioned in the first para, and so with less quotes, there was no need to keep those sentences. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 Spotcheck: Reviewing sources 1, 20, 4, 14, 15, 8. No notable issues I can find among the sources, so this should be good to go. Nice work. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)