# Talk:The Pandorica Opens

Can we not confirm her appearance in this now? Sepmix (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Touche. Sepmix (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, surely we can confirm the appearance of the Cybermen in the finale given that they've been in the trailer and obviously aren't in Vincent and the Doctor, or The Lodger? I would include the Daleks, the Judoon and the Hoix but we can't technically say they're in it, even though we know they are. 86.169.125.120 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Could be in The Big Bang, but not Pandorica Opens. magnius (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I'd say they're in The Pandorica Opens is because of the torches, which Moffat said in DWM were a feature of Episode Twelve and Amy confronts a Cyberman with one. 86.169.125.120 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "you'd say" unless there is a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How about: "It's been on the telly, as a part of the trailer for this episode, transmitted at the end of the previous episode"?84.176.97.72 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In the trailer for this story, transmitted at the end of The_Lodger_(Doctor_Who), River Song mentions that "Your world has visitors. Daleks, Doctor. [pause; sounds like a cut] And Cyberships. Sontarans. Slitheen, Trelonian [?]. Nestene, Drahvins, [fading]"
That's a bit weird, given that the Drahvins were from the planet Drahva in Galaxy 4 and the story of the same name, Galaxy_4, makes no mention of them visiting a world other than their world of origin, except for the expedition to the unnamed planet of the said story. Given the audible pause between "Daleks, Doctor" and "And Cyberships" and a different background sound for both pieces, I'd wager a guess that the second part of this has been added from a different part of this episode or maybe even from the last episode, The Big Bang.
Given furthermore that at least the head-part of a Cyberman is seen in the trailer, I'd think it's okay within wikipedia's rules to count the Cybermen as "appearing" in the episode, albeit maybe not as fully functional beings.
Furthermore, I can't claim to have heard the species/race name "Trelonian" in the series before, even though I pride myself in being quite a freaky completist - but then again, that could be from some non-telly-stuff. (Audio adventures or somesuch.)
84.176.67.1 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A full Cyberman appears in this trailer, however: [1] 13 seconds in  BRIANTIST  (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
"Oops..." hadn't watched that one yet...84.176.67.1 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I heard Chelonians instead of Trelonians...  Hektor (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Can all involved please remember WP:FORUM. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 08:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 

If there really is mentioning of Chelonians, this has some important implications with regard to the canonicity of non-televised stories and, along with the mentioning of the Drahvins, relevance to a potential improvement of the article's sub-section titled "Continuity". For someone who's just about layout and structural rules, this will look like some nerding about and rumour-mongering and chatting, but quite frankly, I believe it has quite a lot of relevance to the article-in-the-making. Time will tell, maybe I'm totally wrong about this. I could start an argument as to how to create an encyclopedia and how not to, but I'll only quote the passage that just got refered to: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, [...]" Well, this IS talk, it is NOT about a mere general discussion about the subject of the article, but some preliminary thoughts on eventual improvement of the contents of the subsection "Continuity". Thus it is perfectly within the project's rules. 84.176.84.40 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. After watching the episode, we're facing a different problem. Along with the other species which were already mentioned here, we get mention of the Zygons, Draconians and an appearance of the "new" Silurians. These are referenced as "everyone who ever hated you" [more or less]. The problem is that if my memory of the televised stories about the Draconians is correct, they were allies of the humans after a war and both humans and Draconians were assaulted by the Daleks and helped by the Doctor. I may be picky about this, but I'd say the Draconians are not part of the "who ever hated the Doctor" category. On the contrary, the Doctor is a noble of Draconia, see: Frontier_in_Space#Episode_Five.
84.176.80.115 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one day you hate the guy and the next you don't.  See Ice Warrior. DonQuixote (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
True, but then there should also be, well, Ice Warriors... and humans... 84.176.55.230 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter to us. At all. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This article seems a little open to interpretation [2], don't think it's refering to Van Gogh returning, but possibly River, Churchill and Liz 10.  magnius (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a blog putting together sources. No good. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 07:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


### Rory
In the hypothetical case Rory is in this episode, do we plan to reopen the debate about whether or not he is a companion for this episode ???  Hektor (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It will obviously depend on the circumstances. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The hypothetical character "Rory" did return, however was not a companion (in my opinion, anyway). Or, dare I say it, "very nice"...
Also, confirmed that Van Gough had one scene at the very start of the episode, and quite a major reference throughout the first quarter of the episode. -TermyJW - The One and Only (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The Auton Rory-lookalike doesn't quite fit into the "companion" category. He's also not literally travelling with the TARDIS in this episode, doesn't even enter it. As River Song is shown to not just travel with the Doctor (albeit: on horseback and afoot...), but even pilot the TARDIS, I'd rather support companion status for River Song for this episode as transmitted.84.176.55.230 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is Rory listed as a companion? He's not even in this episode, and his duplicate does not travel in the TARDIS. I tried removing it, but a user readded it without discussion, so for the moment I have added a citation needed tag since prior sources for Rory's companionship do not apply to the auton.Ωphois 04:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Moffet has given a philosopical question here. (musing) Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he is not a companion in this episode, but is clearly one in the next one, "The Big Bang", at the end of which he leaves Leadsworth with Amy and the Doctor. Hektor (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I added him here originally. It's a two-parter, and he resumes his travels with the Doctor at the end of it. Ergo he is a companion here. That's the way I see it anyway. U-Mos (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So what if it's a two-parter? They are still two separate episodes. And more importantly, the real Rory (the one who does rejoin as a companion) isn't even in this episode... Ωphois 14:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, whether or not he or she traveled in the TARDIS is irrelavent, personal opinions are irrelevant -- it's a matter of being able to verify it with reliable sources.  As for the "two-parter" thing and Auton duplicate thing, debate away. DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Very true, but we have a source for him as a companion so I think common sense allows us to add him if he flies off with the Doctor again as he did in The Big Bang. This argument about him being an Auton in this episode is totally in-universe. The Auton had Rory's mind and memories, as the Doctor explicitly says in The Big Bang, so it is him. U-Mos (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree that he is a companion in "The Big Bang", but the auton is not fully "Rory" until that episode, as is pointed out in the episode. He still has auton programming in "Pandorica". Ωphois 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's a matter of interpretation.  It could be argued that Auto-Rory didn't become full-Rory until he killed Amy, which is in this episode and is recapped in the next episode. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, didn't the Doctor state that his programming ceased because of the Nestene's destruction? Ωphois 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope.  However, he did mention that when the Nestenes copied Rory from Amy's memories, they got a lot more than than bargained for like his heart, etc.   Again, a matter of interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The Rory in "Pandorica" and the Rory in "Big Bang" are still completely separate characters. To say that Rory is also a companion in "Pandorica" just because a duplicate of him appears is pushing it, IMO. Ωphois 17:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
They aren't seperate characters. At all. The Rory from The Pandorica Opens kills Amy, guards the Pandorica for 2000 years, reunites with Amy, helps the Doctor restore the universe and wakes up human on his wedding day. They are the same. U-Mos (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please try to keep your argument straight.  Do you mean Rory in "Big Bang" as in "but the auton is not fully 'Rory' until that episode, as is pointed out in the episode" or Rory in "Big Bang" as in the human wedded Rory at the end?  If the first, then they're the same characters. DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My argument is straight. Auton-Rory and the Rory at the end of "Big Bang" are completely separate characters. One is real, why the other is just a duplicate of his persona (and even at that, the persona does not fully emerge until "Big Bang") that is wiped from existence after the timeline is fixed (both Amy and River remember, while the new Rory was oblivious). The real Rory does not even return until the last ten minutes of "Big Bang". Ωphois 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Human Rory remembers that the Doctor had just saved the universe, which only Auton-Rory would remember. And the Doctor even comments about human Rory as the boy who waited.  Again, a matter of interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, enough of this conjecturing...(I'm watching this episode way too many times)...Rory says, "I was plastic" at about 48:36.  DonQuixote (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just rewatched the end scene, too. I concede :) Ωphois 18:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the TV listings on ITV.com for today. Not sure if you guys want to consider this a credible source or whatever but it lists:

With Matt Smith, Karen Gillan, Alex Kingston, Tony Curran, and Bill Paterson.
So, that's the Doctor, Amy Pond, River Song, Vincent Van Gogh (Vincent and the Doctor) and Professor Bracewell (Victory of the Daleks).
79.78.145.118 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At this stage I'd have thought that we may as well wait until after the episode airs, only 4 ish hours, can't get much more reliable than the episode itself.  That said, I've no obection to adding them now if we really must. magnius (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
*shrug* Just thought I'd mention it as I checked what time it was on later :) 79.78.145.118 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}
please please please pleasssssssssssssse! let me edit this page, I've just watched it

90.197.176.174 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to ask at requests for page protection to have the page unprotected. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 287° 37' 45" NET 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now presumably Nicholas Briggs was as usual voicing the Daleks and Cybermen in this episode, but he was not credited. So if everyone could be on the look out for a good source confirming his role/s, it would be much appreciated. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No online source but he appeared in Confidential. Mezigue (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm no expert, but is it necesary to source Nicholas Brigg's appearance, even if he wasn't credited? We know he voices the Daleks and Cybermen from previous episodes, and it would take some serious sound editing to replicate that voice with a different actor; it sounded exactly the same. Again, I'm new here, so I'm only voicing an opinion. --86.137.44.168 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Verifiability not truth, I'm afraid. Mezigue, was Briggs specifically mentioned as Dalek/Cyber voices, as if so that's plenty good enough for a source. U-Mos (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is that picture of the opened Pandorica doing there? That's the big reveal at the end of the episode! And as if to demolish any ambiguity that would retain the integrity of the secret, someone actually writes, "Oh, it's a prison for the Doctor. Just so you know". Is spoiling an episode now part of Improving Wikipedia? This was aired for the first time yesterday, and that's only in one region; Americans still have to wait, what, two weeks for this. I highly suggest removing the image.  79.72.129.155 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, all articles about books or TV shows describe the plot in full ... you wouldn't go to an article on Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince if you didn't want to find out who died in it. By the same standard, if you haven't seen the episode of Doctor Who yet, then why are you here? --86.137.44.168 (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There's obviously quite a bit of difference between a synopsis of the plot in a clearly labelled section, and an immediate, top of the page, picture of a specific spoiler. You wouldn't have a picture on that Harry Potter article of that character being killed, a message underneath stating something to the tune of "In this book, this happens at the end". I'm sure there are plenty of reasons someone would come to the page before having seen the episode (you'll notice there are more sections then "plot", after all). You can't assume that no one who hasn't seen the episode will ever come to this page. If they do, then they've got a nasty surprise waiting for them. And usually, as is the case with the rest of Wikipedia, they would expect not have have plot events detailed until the appropriate section. It actually hurts the "flow" of the article, starting it with an image from the end of the episode, if that makes sense to anyone else. Finally, it adds nothing to the article at all; why not use another image: the promotional image of the Doctor standing on a rock of Stonehenge seems more appropriate anyway. 79.72.189.160 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree completely on this, there's a huge difference between a plot synopsis and an unavoidable picture at the top of the page. It should be changed. --Impossible (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It should perhaps be removed on copyright grounds, but we don't care about spoilers. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 07:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Spoilers : "Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." Of course, that's not specifically stating that spoilers should only be found under those sections. But if you consider the user, as I have above, it's not hard to recognise that it's beneficial, for the user and for the quality of the article, to remove this picture.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.189.160 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}
In the continuity section it states that the Pandorica was first mentioned in Silence in the Library, however this is not the case the Pandorica was first mentioned in The Eleventh Hour and had not been mentioned previously
Epictracks (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a source, and then it can be changed. CTJF83 pride 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As it happens, Epictracks is quite correct, and how could one possibly provide a source stating that something wasn't mentioned in an episode? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

They are quite clearly in a few scenes. --77.102.185.220 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You can even see one in the photo on the actual page....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.169.66 (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, the thing in the photo is actually a Hoix, but I agree, the Sycorax do appear in the background of some other shots. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A Sycorax warrior, Blowfish and what appears to be General Kudlak appear clearly if you pause at 46:01. Left to right, top to bottom, scanning across approximately, the scene shows: 5 plastic Romans, a Sycorax warrior, eight more plastic Romans, Blowfish, what appears to be, perhaps, a toclafane half-covered by something and hovering at head height (though it may be another costume with a similarly textured helmet), a roboform pilot fish, General Kudlak (or someone of his species with the same colour clothing), a red dalek, a white dalek, a yellow dalek, two more plastic centurions, a Silurian, three cybermen, the Hoix, three sontarans (one unhelmeted), and three Judoon (one unhelmeted). 173.12.172.149 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the article has two images (which is never ideal), one showing the open Pandorica and one showing the assembled alien species. I would like to propose that we replace both with this single picture, which depicts both elements of the episode, and also their combination (the aliens watching the Doctor dragged into the Pandorica—it's much more comprehensive than the two separate files currently used). Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

err why is the Doctor pointing at him self? was that intended?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not altogether sure, but that image was one of the official promotional pictures the BBC released in high-resolution to journalists, so it is intended to capture the episod etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
the aliens look a little scattered around the scene as if it is behind the scenes, the picture with all the aliens facing the camera looks much better.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The point isn't to "look better" though, it is to capture the spirit of the episode in a way compliant with the non-free content criteria (especially Criterion 3a), which I'm concerned that the two images currently used do not. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 10:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
yeah we need to be careful with the NFCC, although following you're point about the spirit of the episode, the alien picture i chose seems to follow it, (an army of the doctors worst enemies heading towards the viewer/doctor's point of view) the picture you choose which probably will comply more with the NFCC looks like it was shot during rehersal and the doctor's hand is blurry--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot stress strongly enough the fact that the photographic quality (blurry hands etc.) is completely irrelevant, as is whether it was a rehearsal shot or otherwise.The principle is that we should use the smallest amount of non-free content possible. Currently, we have two images, one depicting the open Pandorica and one depicting the allied races.I have identified one image showing both these things, plus the relationship between them (as the Doctor is being dragged around by the aliens), and am strongly of the opinion that it is adquate. Sure, it may not be as arty as the others, but that's not the threshold here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright then you've convinced me, we will use your picture and will remove the other two.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding—I do think it's for the best (although I do like the two pics you selected, potential desktop wallpaper material coming up!) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 11:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed, the old picture is back! why?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
God knows. I've changed it accordingly. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks I'll strike through my comment--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have searched all over, and read much speculation, but is there any source that states who the voice was inside the Tardis? Seems like it would be very important to add if it is known. magnius (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

you mean the voice actor? Mezigue (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well if your referring to who the character is then its a mystery and should wait till saturday to find out who and include the character name but i think your might be referring to the voice actor as to which i do not know. Pro66 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
So, does anyone knows which race it is..? Who can take control on the Tardis, causing the whole universe to collapse? --Yuval Y § Chat § 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly a mystery left to be solved in the next season. Mezigue (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is "escape" the right word for what happened? I don't think we can say for sure that Liz assisted River, but "escape" implies Liz was unwilling to help, which seems unlikely.Willcrys 84 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The bit I added in continuity stating that the scene with the Tardis getting hit by lightning is used in the opening credits has been removed, as was the part of the plot stating that galaxies disappear at the end, because apparently some contributors believe they might be explosions.  When I pointed out that most plot and continuity sections are unsourced I got directed (on my talk page) to the "other shit exists" page.  I find this a bit flippant and misguided.  This is much more relevant: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Primary_and_secondary_information: "The term primary information describes information that originates from primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g., another episode of the same series). Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source."

You plain do not need secondary sources for the plot and continuity sections, unless there is a doubt.  Otherwise it would be impossible to write them!  Does anyone doubt that the sequence with the TARDIS being hit by lightning in this episode is being used in the credits?  As for galaxies vs explosions, we can discuss it here.  To me there isn't the shadow of a doubt that they are galaxies disappearing.  Mezigue (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

On the vortex sequence: have we seen the TARDIS in the vortex at any other point during this season?  I don't think we have, off hand, and thus to connect the opening credits to this specific sequence is a bit of synthesis.  It may simply be the stock footage they had of the TARDIS traveling (lightning and all) and only here was the opportunity to actually show it after all post-production edits.
On the explosions, it needs to be very obvious and not interpretive what is going on.  There are explosions going around Earth, that's given, but what they are is not immediately apparent. If the Confidential confirms them to be galaxies, great, but without ease of clarification, it is better to avoid anything interpretive. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is far from clear that they are galaxies exploding, all we really see are points of light with rings eminating from them, could be stars, galaxies, black holes, anything really. This is why we needs sources, it helps avoid original research. magnius (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mezigue, you are falling into your own trap! "To me there isn't the shadow of a doubt that they are galaxies disappearing [...] We can discuss it here." If it needs discussion and is based solely on being beyond a shadow of your doubt, then it is original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it original research to write they are galaxies but not to write that they are explosions (the current version) ??? Mezigue (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How is it original research to write they are galaxies but not to write that they are explosions ??? Surely it's obvious? They are clearly explosions because we can see things exploding. However, the shot is not detailed enough to make it certain as to whether they are galaxies, superclusters, planets, stars, constellations, whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Because they're not galaxies...at least they don't appear to be galaxies.  Don't know where you got the galaxies thing.  DonQuixote (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed both these things. It's not clear they're galaxies, but they are evidently explosions. Simple as that. As for the vortex thing, I couldn't say it was the start of the titles, and I don't think we should without a source. From memory it ceratinly seemed to be faster. However, it is the first in-episode appearance of the new vortex so I will put that in continuity. U-Mos (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be mentioned that the coordinates (ΘΣ Φ ΓΥΔϟ ΘΣ), when translated additively to 9, 200, 503, 404, 90, gives a reading in five dimensions which corresponds to the number of dimensions Susan Foreman told Ian Chesterton were necessary to calculate locations in An Unearthly Child'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.185.220 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 

Do you have a reliable source, or is this original research? Edgepedia (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that River Song announces an additional alien race, which is not listed in the continuity section. Something which sounds like Hæmogoths.  Hektor (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that what they call vampires nowadays? Mezigue (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The subtitles of the Season 5 DVD spell that Haemo-goth. I suggest to take that I spelling. 90.58.123.137 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make? They all sound the same! Since they're all clones, obviously it'll be the same actor! Mdw0 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 

It's for celebrity guest appearance purposes. And they're not the same actor. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Pandorica Opens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Will review soon. Ruby 2010/2013 05:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
Images, external links, and references look good
"The weather conditions were very cold with wind a rain which caused difficulties..." Missing word here I think
"Gillan was stated she "really wanted" to work with the iconic monster". "Was stated" doesn't quite work here
The A.V. Club is italicized
Is the wikiquote link accurate?
Should add something about the ratings to the lead (look for other possible items that could be added to lead, if any)
Pretty minor comments, but I'll place the review on hold for seven days anyways. Well done article as always, Ruby 2010/2013 05:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Knew I was missing something in the lead! The Wikiquote page includes all the episodes with the Eleventh Doctor, not just lines spoken by the character (Doctor Who episodes are understandably broken up by Doctor era as there are so many). Would you like me to get it to point to the section for this episode (if possible)? Glimmer721 talk 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If you want, but after hearing about how wikiquotes are structured for Doctor Who, it's not way necessary you change it. Anyways, passing the article for GA. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In the intro paragraph (which can't be edited), it says that filming at Stonehenge happened in Feb. 2009 but in the production section it says that it occurred in 2010 when the rest of the scenes were filmed.69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks wrong so I've corrected it. You can edit the whole article by clicking on the 'Edit' at the top of the page. Edgepedia (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There is something wrong, the enemy in the last escene is THE HOIX, not a weevil, you can check "Love & Monsters" 
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Hoix  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.205.0.197 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 

Having a list of the mosters is original research anyway; it is trivia that is better on another site. Glimmer721 talk 17:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Weevils did appear in the scene, as well as the Hoix.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokelego999 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC) 

The article references the members of the alliance, but only lists a group, while implying that is all of them, despite many more appearing in the Underhenge (Silurians, Weevils, and Sycorax for instance) and many more being mentioned (Such as Drahvins, Slitheen, Zygons, and Chelonians). It would be inaccurate to suggest the group they mentioned is all that was there. It should be changed to at least say something like "including" or "among others".
The quote in question "At the episode's conclusion an alliance of many of the Doctor's enemies appear: the Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, Judoon, Autons, Sycorax, Hoix, Silurians, and Roboforms."