Talk:The Edge of Destruction

The Doctor's heart(s)

I just watched this serial and began to think that Ian and Barbara just weren't familiar with Time Lord physiology. This would explain the talk of a single heart. 101090ABC (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that talk pages are for making improvements to the article not for fan speculation. second please try to understand that elements of this show evolved over - well almost 49 years now. As stated in the continuity section of this article the characteristic of the Dr having two hearts was first mentioned in The Spearhead from Space which aired almost six years after this story. Until that time as far as the writers - production staff - actors - were concerned he only had one heart. MarnetteD | Talk 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of talk page rules. My point actually was to say that my idea could be one possible explanation, as well as the ones already in the article, and if a source could be found, it could be put in the article as an explanation along with the explanations already in the article page. I am sorry if my point wasn't clear from my initial comment. 101090ABC (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There can be no explanation that will not violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. You are trying to apply an "in universe" explanation which we are supposed to avoid in an encyclopedia. I can't remember where it is but several years ago guidelines were installed that we only add items to articles from an "out of universe" perspective. This allows for readers who have not watched the show before, and who are not steeped in its lore, to understand what they are reading. I have reworded the item to try and fix this problem. Please don't take this the wrong way. As fans of the show we are always trying to make sense of the discontinuities that have crept in over the years. I do the same thing - for instance my explanation for the fact that guns have been fired in the TARDIS in spite of the "temporal state of grace" first described in The Hand of Fear is to point out that a) the 4ths Dr says that it exists "in here" b) they are standing in the wood paneled control room and c) he does not say that it applies to the whole TARDIS. Since all the weapons fired occur in other parts of the TARDIS this has always been an elegant answer for me but it is my own OR and SYNTHESIS and others will disagree with it. We are supposed to save these discussions speculations for chat rooms and such. I hope this helps explain things a little but I will understand if it doesn't. MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I just began to think about it when I saw the explanations already given in the article. I know, that Wikipedia must use certain rules, because I myself am a contributor to the Finnish Wikipedia. 101090ABC (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I hope that have continue to enjoy editing on both Wikis!! MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Tardis Alive

Article states:

This serial introduces the ideas that the TARDIS console and time rotor directly harness the energies which drive the ship, and that the TARDIS is "alive" and somewhat self-aware.

This isn't quite true though -- I forget which character it is, but one of Ian or Barbara first comment on touching the TARDIS in An Unearthly Child that it feels as though it is alive, so the idea was at least hinted at from the very beginning. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auldhouse (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Pass! Great article and a job well-done.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written. Pass. I did a little copy edit pass and fixed a few quotations and other things.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable. Pass.Auldhouse (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. Pass. Good explanation of use for image.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass: