# Talk:The End of the World (Doctor Who)

I was thinking of adding the note:

Rose's line "Where am I gonna go, Ipswich?" is an exact copy of a line of dialogue spoken by Kate Winslet as Reet in Russell T. Davies' very first television drama, the children's science-fiction serial Dark Season from 1991. In both, the characters are trapped in rooms and told not to go anywhere by the leading male character on the other side of the door.
But I was worried it might be a bit ephemeral for this place. What does anyone else think? Angmering 12:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A bit too obscure unless you want to use it as an exmaple of authors' a) recycling their own material, b) leaving hidden tidbits for the cognescenti. If you were to add it, it would either a) make the article appear very nerdy/fanboy, or b) generate some (healthy?) cynicism about Mr Davies attitude to writing. GraemeLeggett 14:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I suspected, a bit too obscure. Never mind, it'll definitely get a mention elsewhere online / in print. As to it being cynical - that didn't really strike me, I just thought it was a fun little reference to Dark Season for all those of us who were children in the early 1990s! Angmering 14:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, if nowhere else, I intend to use that ever so interesting bit of trivia in the About Time style guide I'm writing for the new series with a friend...can I cite you for noticing it? I'll post a link to the guide here when I have it online. -- Guybrush 03:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, feel free. It'll also be turning up in Shaun Lyon's Back to the Vortex, which is probably hard surprising given that I'm helping out with that one! Angmering 13:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As with the article on the first new Dr Who episode, I think the synopsis needs to be shortened, to include only major plot points. Would anyone conceivably need such a detailed analysis? It seems unencyclopedic, fuelled only by fans. Moreover, should every single episode of every single TV series ever have such a long synopsis? Unless anyone has any radical objections I'll try and shorten it in a few days. (I don't edit the discussion pages very often, apologies for any mistakes in formatting) - Inebriatedonkey

I am with you on this one, though Khaosworks has their own viewpoint.GraemeLeggett
Like I said, I've been doing the articles like this for several months now with no objection. As a compromise position, that is why I added the plot section for Rose so people don't have to read the longer summary if they don't have to. So yes, I have a radical objection. --khaosworks 15:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Check the Wikipedia entry for Synopsis: "a brief summary".  Maybe you should do it the other way round, and have Synopsis  for the brief summary and Plot for the longer one.  And move the long one to the biottom of the article so we don't have to waste time scrolling past it to get to the Notes.  (Or better still, just get rid of the longer one completely, like Inebriatedonkey and Graeme suggested!)  P Ingerson 15:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad suggestion, i.e. rearranging it. What do Inebriateddonkey and Graeme think? --khaosworks 15:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd still go with my original opinion of deleting it all and keeping just a couple of paragraphs detailing the summary. Having said that, if you want to keep it, just go by Ingerson's suggestion. -Inebriatedonkey
Wikipedia is limitless, and people do not have to read what they are not interested in. You arguments about being be fuelled by fans, whilst maybe true, could be said about any page on wikipedia. For example who would be interested in the detailed result break downs of various national, local and regional elections all over the world? Such information is the stuff of wikipedia. Moreover, who else would even come to this page other than a fan in the first place?
Noone can prevent you from shortening the synopis or the plot described, but equally in the future others can and will lengthen and shorten it. In fact already one long plot analysis has been replaced by a longer synopsis. Tim! (talk) 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Considering the issue, I suggest the following. A true summary synopsis first and a
more detailed plotting further down, possibly even after the notes. Why don't we try that on a couple and see how it goes?GraemeLeggett 08:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried just that with the rearrangement of sections. --khaosworks 08:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It almost works, unfortunately while the notes breaks up the synopsis from the plot, the notes make less sense since the synopsis is currently too short. The notes need to go below the plot section unless all the continuity points raised are in the synopsis. I'll move it. GraemeLeggett 14:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should settle this for reasons of consistency. Previous serial and episode articles have had "originally aired" - which is accurate, as they were free-to-air. The new ones have had first broadcast because we now have cable and satellite transmission, but the earlier ones I think should stay as "aired". Thoughts? --khaosworks 17:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tv signals have always been Broadcast for me. You air greviances and clothing, and tv presenters are "on air" when it's live but the BBC broadcasts to the nation GraemeLeggett 20:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Transmitted is another option, as favoured by Howe and Walker's The Television Companion. Tim! (talk) 16:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are some wild inferences in the notes about the eye of harmony! (Especially the pumping). I suspect some light will be thrown on events, at least as far as the spin-off novels are concerned, in the forthcoming novel the Gallifrey Chronicles, and possibly within the series. Tim! (talk) 20:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The influences of the novels are probably minimal on the vast majority. (readers of the novels being far less than viewing audience). Mind you my continuity reference is the Discontinuity Guide (which I note the BBC has adapted for its Doctor Who website)GraemeLeggett 20:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lance Parkin, writer of "The Gallifrey Chronicles" has made it abundantly clear that the book will not have anything to do with the new series, although it will supposedly flow quite well into it. We'll just have to wait and see. As for the Eye, my intent was just to point out that there's a problem that has yet to be explained - I left the pumping bit in although it treads very close to speculation, but if people want to remove the note in part or completely, I've got no problems. --khaosworks 20:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed. End of the World is a fairly large disambiguation page and "The End of the World" needs to point to it. I would suggest "The End of the World (television)", however I will solicit your input before making any changes. Stbalbach 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at other Dr Who episodes with disambig problems, such as Inferno (Doctor Who) I will rename it to "The End of the World (Doctor Who)" Stbalbach 16:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in the USA and have not yet had the privelege of watching the new Doctor Who series.  But - I remember a loooong time ago (almost 20 years) I saw a first doctor episode from the 1960s where they were on a "eco-bio ship" carrying the last humans from Earth to a new planet just before the sun expanded into a red giant and destroyed the earth.  I recall the Doctor watching the event from the spaceship.  If so, it would mean that this ninth doctor is actually in the same place and time as the 1st doctor!  Interesting concept.  Does nayone know the episode Im talking about from the 60s?  If so, we should put it in as a trivia item or an actual note regarding a plot issue. -Husnock 06:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's in the notes - the Earth was burned by the Sun in The Ark during the 57th Segment of Time, which the First Doctor estimated at AD 10,000,000. Even considering it's an estimation, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Doctor was out by two orders of magnitude. In the episode, we don't see the Earth being blown apart - we see it burning. It's entirely possible that in between The Ark and this episode the National Trust moved in and re-terraformed and repopulated the Earth, the Ark inhabitants' proclamation that they were leaving Earth "for the last time" notwithstanding. 4,990,000,000 years is a long time. --khaosworks 06:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Easier to say that this is one of those irreconciable differences that happens with Doctor who - and that it generally only worries fans with good memories. I would like to write a bit on doctor who continuity just to say these things happen. GraemeLeggett 11:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But that's no fun. :) The game is trying to explain around the inconsistencies rather than chalk it up to metafictional reasons. I believe we already have a paragraph in The Doctor (Doctor Who) that talks about discontinuities. --khaosworks 11:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article lists "Forest of Cheem" although when I heard it I'd assumed it was a pun on "Forest of Cheam". Pity ... --Vamp:Willow 19:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jabe's 'long appendage' is actually a liana --Jawr256 07:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the Doctor says to her in that scene "nice liana". Tim! (talk) 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I have my words mixed up or not, but isn't "Bad Wolf" a repeated meme? CNash 12:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

See Bad Wolf references in Doctor Who for a mention of this exact point. :) --khaosworks 12:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I watched with subtitles on DVD and this came up as "repeated mean". After a bit of a laugh, I heard Doc say "But what is a mean?" when he pulls off the arm. Anyone else get this?MartinSFSA (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The source for info on guests such as the University ones and the Rex Vok Jax bit comes from where? It's neither in the program nor in Monsters and Villains.--213.18.248.23 07:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the note until someone who has the book can verify it one way or another. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I have the book: it has nothing to do with the Rex Vok Jax or the Class 55.--84.51.149.80 15:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not in Monsters and Villains, but it is in The Shooting Scripts.  I'll put it back in with the appropriate citation. —Josiah Rowe 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the scripts, but it is actually in Monsters and Villains. I wouldn't have imagained that it's in the scripts: the Rex Vox Jax and the Class Fifty-Five sections weren't mentioned in the actual program.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My bad: they're actually mentioned in both books.  (Page 69 of Monsters and Villains, page 56 of The Shooting Scripts).  I assumed that the anon user above was correct, and didn't check Monsters and Villains.  By the way, all the details are in both volumes: I assume that a few of the Steward's lines were cut for time or pacing. —Josiah Rowe 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Josiah tried a compromise wording as follows:

The Steward informs the Doctor that teleportation is banned under "Peace Treaty 5.4/Cup/15" (presumably named after the year it was enacted, like the Freedom of Information Act 2000). How exactly this dating system works is never explained, but the format would suggest that each figure indicates an order of magnitude from right to left, as in year, decade, century, millennium, and mega annum. It has also been speculated that the Apple or Cup part of the date is the use of an alphabetical word from Earth: for example, "B" could be Ball.
First of all, as I've said before, that last sentence is purely speculative. TheDoctor10 also refuses to provide a source for who speculates as such, except to mention some vague names which I presume are simply his friends. That aside, the compromise isn't much, unfortunately, because the sentence is a non-sequitor. How is it speculative that the Apple or Cup part is the use of an alphabetical word from Earth if it is self apparent? Also, nowhere is the letter "B" used where it can be inferred that B means ball, since the two uses we've seen so far are whole words. Everything there is self-evident; the reader isn't an idiot - they can draw their own conclusions, in the same way they don't need a link to the FOIA 2000 to see that format. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about my edit; I was just trying to play peacemaker.  I think the current revision contains all the relevant info. —Josiah Rowe 00:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I realise you were going for a compromise, and I really do appreciate that (and the other work you've done), Josiah. Just pointing out that as a whole, the sentence really was uncited and speculative, so I'm not sure it can be salvaged. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to be babyish, but I will keep re-adding it. I think it is worth it, the individuals I named think it is worth it, I will, if you like, write to Russel T Davies personally (via the BBC) and ask him what he thinks. You say I cannot name friends as a source. Two points: a)Why not? b)Who said anything about their being my friends? The same goes with List of minor Doctor Who villains.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Because it is verging on meaningless and adds nothing to the article.Tim! (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want to write to RTD, please do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I certainly shall do. You, however, must agree that if I receive a reply saying that either he or the Beeb think it's "good" speculation, it stays in the article. However, nice work on Doctor Who items. See: you can compromise if you try.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a compromise. You cited your sources, and although it is still exceedingly trivial, it was salvageable as a small addition. With regard to writing to RTD: I don't care if he says it's "good speculation", because that is still speculation - I want him to say that was what he intended. And note that we would require firm proof of the authenticity of the reply. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
RTD approves of speculation: not necessarily of this, but in general. The Bad Wolf.org.uk website among other things is testimony to that. If he thinks that this speculation is not too far out, then I am going to feel that it may be used. For proof of the reply, the best I can do is either scan the letter and upload it, or you can first write to him, give him a password, then he gives it to me in his reply. If you have better ways of proving that my life goes no further than faking letters from BBC script-writers, please say so below. Yours, with the greatest <!--lack of--> respect,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
hidden text revealed by Josiah Rowe 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

RTD may approve of speculation. Wikipedia does not. He's not Jimbo. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Shall we ask Jimbo's opinion then?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How does one contact him? Once, I left a message on his talkpage and someone else replied. Should I call the 'phone number for the press?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
What...an almighty admin like you not knowing how to contact his boss? I'm shocked!(from TheDoctor10)

I don't think that an appeal to Jimbo is any more helpful than an appeal to RTD.  That's not how this place is supposed to work.  You don't write to the President because you and your next-door neighbor can't agree about whether to cut down a tree.  Furthermore, Jimbo's page is pretty clear about the "phone number for the press" being, well, for the press.
If we can't settle this between ourselves, the next step is a request for comment.  Not calling Jimbo on the phone. —Josiah Rowe 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Josiah, see the Talk:List of minor Doctor Who villains.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TheDoctor10 Tim! (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm questioning the notability of noting what is very obviously an error in the subtitles. There is no significance to this. 
Also, there is no basis for speculating that the Doctor scavenged from the "ruins of Gallifrey". At least the idea that it is no longer powered by the Eye of Harmony can be deduced from the classic series and the refuelling in Boom Town, but I don't see where you can reasonably get the idea he was scavenging from the ruins of Gallifrey in specific. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've put the "bad-move" note back in as a probable subtitling error: although its notability might be questionable, it could be considered a mildly interesting bit of trivia.  (Obviously, if others disagree we can take the line back out again.)
I agree that "scavenged from the ruins of Gallifrey" is too speculative.  However, designer Edward Thomas has mentioned in interviews that he wanted the TARDIS console to look cobbled-together with whatever replacement parts the Doctor could find in his travels.  If we can find a suitable quotation from a DWM interview or Doctor Who Confidential, the console design might be worth mentioning. (I'm not sure whether this article is the right place for it, but we could probably find a better one.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Possibly TARDIS? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, although I don't have time to do it right now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that the "scavenged from Gallifrey" is a possibility, though I admit it's in the same class as 5.4/Cup/15 - what I call statements of the truth and what you call lies/speculation. However, I don't want another argument, so I'll await your replies here. This isn't intended to be an ultimatum, but I'll take it that you agree if there aren't any replies within 24hrs.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagree why not scavenged from Skaro, or any of a million other explanationsTim! (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagree as above (although I don't know why we need to be so formal).  The designer's comments, as I recall them, indicated that there was a Gallifreyan aesthetic behind the console room's look, but it had been worn down by centuries of use and abuse by the Doctor.  "Scavenged from Gallifrey" might be possible, but there's no real indication that it is the case.  Rose might be the great-granddaughter of Ma Tyler from Image of the Fendahl, but there's nothing to suggest that she is, so we don't say that on Rose Tyler. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagree, in case it wasn't clear. In addition, I don't think that we need a poll for every thing. —khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 November 2005 forgot to sign!
True, we don't need a poll for everything, but I'd rather have an excess of polls than edit wars. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a poll. Tim!'s comment doesn't count because he's just saying no on principle. I imagain the rest of you are too, but I won't labour the point.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 10:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for Tim, but the only "principle" I'm operating under is the principle that Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic and verifiable.  I'm glad that you're making constructive edits, TD10, but you really should try to get over this persecution complex.  It's not about you unless you make it about you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that "Toxic" was released as a 12" single.  I think that RTD wrote in a DWM "Production Notes" that it wasn't released on vinyl at all.  Evidently he was wrong, but the point was probably that there wasn't a single of "Toxic" that could be played in the jukebox they had on set, and they had to mock one up.  I'll see if I can find the DWM reference to confirm it later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, and the note's clearer now. I remembered some discussion on the OG forums after the episode aired about whether "Toxic" was actually released as a single or not. I'm not too savvy with the difference between 7" and 12" vinyl, but I knew that someone pointed out it was released. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person to think that this episode "borrowed" heavily from The Restaurant at the end of the Universe? --Dweller 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see: we have a bunch of rich and weird people (and also people) gathering to watch the end of a world/universe in the far future. That's pretty much where the resemblance stops, though. No murders, last humans, robot spiders, death traps in Restaurant. Similarly, no Dish of the Day, rock bands, deities, immortals in The End of the World. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(btw I loved this episode) --Dweller 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Didn't think you didn't. :) But the similarities, IMO, are pretty superficial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice Point but that could be true because If you look at the old series you will find that Duglas Adams did some work on some of them.Doctorwho642 05:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a whole bunch of changes, mainly to break up the trivia section. I added "Cast Notes," "Production," "Broadcast," and "Continuity" sections. I left the "Continuity" section as bulleted text, but changed "Production" and "Broadcast" to prose, in the hopes that somebody will fill those sections in a bit more in the future. I deleted a few speculative or original research bits, a few that weren't particularly relevent to this particular episode, and cleaned up a few links and the references. Apologies if I've deleted anyone's favorite bit, but hopefully, if anyone puts something back, it'll at least be a little easier to find. --Brian Olsen 23:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The article states "The Fourth Doctor found it unusual that Sarah would ask about understanding other languages, but the Ninth Doctor is not surprised by Rose's question here." I think this slightly misrepresents the events in The Masque of Mandragora. To my recollection, when Sarah asks about understanding Italian, she was under the hypnotic influence of Hieronymous. The Doctor had told her long ago (off-screen, presumably) that it was a Time Lord gift he shared with her, and found it strange that she was (again) asking about the language issue. In fact, this was what tipped him off to the fact that she was under some influence. So the Doctor's surprise was very circumstantial and was very much unlike Rose asking about the language issue on her very first trip.
--Peter Niemeyer 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

could anyone tell me how the doctor managed to get passed the third fan with his eyes closed?
some kind of a time lord ability?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.104.211.190 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 

OK, I could answer this in several ways.  First of all, you should know that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of a topic.  In future, you might do better to ask questions like this on a fan site like the Doctor Who Forum.
Second, what you see in the episode is open to interpretation: if you have a theory about it, it's as likely as anyone else's to be correct.
Third, what I personally think happened (and I'm no more of an authority than anyone else — see above) is that the Doctor concentrated the natural time sensitivity that he possesses as a Time Lord so as to know the exact moment when it would be safe for him to step through the fan.
Finally, here's what Russell T. Davies wrote in the script for "The End of the World":
CU THE DOCTOR.  The fan is impossibly fast, whuk-whuk-whuk. He tries to step forward, but the blade almost skims him; he jolts back, scared —
(...intervening shot of Rose, computer voiceover countdown lines...)
But then the word just echoes away, all b/g noise sliding into nothing as THE DOCTOR simply lifts his head, closes his eyes, summoning an absolute calm.  He is completely in control of this single second.
He steps forward.  Through the blades, out to the other side.  And he snaps back to reality — the noise, the countdown.  There's a massive lever on the wall...
Hope that helps! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be interesting to mention the references to Dunes in this episode?

the Face of Boe in its 'tank' looks remarkably like the Guild Navigator (see not-so-good picture on that page) in David Lynch's 1985 dune movie, complete with basically the same scene when it enters the room.
when Rose mentions something about the alien being so strange, the Doctor says something like "You are lucky that I didn't bring you to the deep south then".  In the Dune novel, "the deep south" is the name given to the hidden part of the planet, protected from scrutiny from space, and where the civilized people do not go but where the mythical, huge sand worms live (check that article to see that they indeed are a bit strange).
To me it seems blatant, but if I'm unconvincing, I suppose that we could drag some Dune article writer into the debate.
87.64.123.4 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely do not understand the concept beneath deleting the section with the comment thanks for all of the {{WP;OR]] but this is not a chat room and retrospective ideas are perfect for those.  Can you not tell me in a comment here what you are talking about?  Way to deal with new users, so they do feel like they can just get the hell out of someone's personal playground and go away in disgust from this supposedly newbie-friendly and community-oriented place.  This is a genuine attempt to help, I had to figure things out, and I am being treated exactly as if I was trying to vandalize some precious discussion page. 87.64.123.4 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand how you feel. Let me clarify why some contributions are removed. Wikipedia has some strict rules about what information can be added to articles. One of the basic rules is that everything must be sourced, so that the information is verifiable. That means that we cannot make our own conclusion, as that ammount to original research. There are other wikis that do allow this kind of information (the Tardis Index File for example), but Wikipedia is quite adamant about it's information meeting the standards of an encyclopedia.  — Edokter (talk) —  14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The End of the World (Doctor Who). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfx.co.uk/tv_reviews/doctor_who_the_end_of_the_world
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The End of the World (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 20:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Opening reviewKingsif (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Lead doesn't mention that the episode has big costumes, only vaguely refers to SFX, when there's a lot on them - should be mentioned
through gaining compensation from staging a hostage situation is awkward and uncommon phrasing - just say 'by fabricating a hostage situation'
Could move the viewing figures up to the end of the first paragraph, but lead seems otherwise fine
Describing Cassandra with but actually suggests she's not the last human, when she is. Could rephrase to 'billed as "the last human", though she remains only a face on a large piece of skin that must be continually moisturised, with her brain in a vat below' or something
I'd probably add a hidden note to say that, yes, their name does include the phrase 'Repeated Meme', this was 2005, it's not trolling
Images could be rearranged: Cassandra seems more pertinent to Plot than the Face of Boe (and even Jabe). And the robot spider isn't mentioned in 'conception' - perhaps even have Cassandra there, the robot spider in Plot, and Boe and Jabe in the gallery.
Of course, the article isn't really long enough to justify so many images outside of the gallery, which should only show characters discussed in the article. So, you could also move them all (except Billie Piper) to the gallery, removing some of the current ones.
Conception feels like it could have more detail, if there's anything about writing process?
because she was about to be unavailable working on the film The Business - again, awkward and uncommon, would be better as 'because of commitments for film The Business that would make her unavailable'
pick-up shots can be wikilinked
"ducts" should probably be expanded to 'air ducts', or whatever the Plot section uses to describe
All of the Filming subsection can realistically be merged into one paragraph
First two sentences in 'Effects and costumes' belong in 'Filming'
This subsection could do with some restructuring. I'd start with the number of SFX shots.
Cast notes section can be removed - the Cassandra paragraph belongs in Conception, and the Bannerman one is uncited.
The cold open mention is not part of broadcast, it's a production decision. I'd say in Conception. The second sentence of it, mentioning pre-credit teasers, needs some rephrasing. It could be as simple as changing the two sentences to 'This episode begins with a cold open, the first time Doctor Who has done this, which from here on became a standard feature. The show has previously used pre-credits teaser sequences, but only for some special episodes in the 1980s.'
Otherwise, Broadcast and reception section is good, and a good length for the article. Appears to be neutrally weighted with the reviews included.
on hold Some things to improve Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@DMT biscuit: Thanks for picking up work so quickly, you'll see I've also made some edits, where maybe my comments weren't clear enough. Looks good now. If there's nothing more about writing the episode, for example, this can pass - is there more coverage that could be included? Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Made some final clarifications from sources, and a ce.  Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)