Talk:Torchwood

Season 2 group photo - FYI

Due to inept editing by the original graphic artist in assembling people who were not actually together in the same room, that group photograph was discussed on the blog Photoshop Disasters in 2008: http://www.psdisasters.com/2008/11/torchwood-retractable-thumbs.html#disqus_thread I thought some of you might be interested. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual, Bisexual,Omnisexual

Over the last couple of days I've seen a couple of edits/reversions similar to this. Can the participants stop because it's verging on an edit war over this section of text. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 12:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The term as used in the show doesn't mean anything outside of the show, at least to the uninitiated. In fact, it only means anything to fans of the show who have read a lot of interviews with John Barrowman. "Omnisexual relationships" might please fans, but it's not really a theme the show explores. "Gay and bisexual relationships" is both true and simple.Zythe (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the Tosh/Mary relationship in “Greeks Bearing Gifts” was the furthest the show has explored that theme. (Despite Captain Jack’s amorousness toward every sapient lifeform in the universe being a running gag on Doctor Who, he doesn’t get to flirt with aliens much on Torchwood.) I think we should delete the word because it’s not a “prominent theme” of the show, but not out of mere kneejerk language purism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disdain of flabby language is perfectly justifiable ;) Zythe (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Torchwood/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: 1 issue

1. http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=29747 - is 500 error, effectively 404ed.

Comments: Let me just throw this out there. This article LOOKs good, it LOOKs like a GA, but the deeper issues upon review have me nearly convinced that this will not pass without substantial rewriting and fixes across the entire article. I will be as lenient as I really can with the GA criteria, but even still... this is going to be rough.

• " primary plot generator" - jargon in the lead. A better wording would be best.
• "The first series premiered on BBC Three and on BBC HD in 2006 to mixed reviews but viewing figures which broke records for the digital channel." - comma before the "but".
• "its uneven tone" - explain what the uneven tone is.
  • Basic English.Zythe (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasn't asking for a definition of "uneven tone". I was asking, what was the uneven tone - it was a call for clarification by example and something that should be discussed in the text. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• " bigger budget" - bigger is an improper word choice.
• " Despite airing in July evenings, typically a graveyard slot, spread across five nights in one week, the show received unexpectedly high ratings at home and abroad and, for the most part, reviews hailed it as excellent." - Rewrite completely.
• " alternative reality game" - is "Alternate reality game"

Production:

• What are "rushes"?
• What is an "after-watershed" - detail this in the text.
• " According to Barrowman: "I don't do any nude scenes in series one; they're saving that for the next series! I don't have a problem with getting my kit off. As long as they pay me the right money, I'm ready to get out my cock and balls."" - I do not think that any part of this is appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. That last part has got to be removed before I'll pass this - even if you fix everything else. This is a major problem with WP:TONE.
• Due to the level of interest in the show from younger audience members, despite the adult themes, the BBC decided to craft the second series such that a "child-friendly" edit of the shows could go out at 7 pm (pre-watershed). - Needs to be reworded. The edits need to be described.
• Following the broadcast of Miracle Day, Starz's Chief executive officer Chris Albrecht stated in March 2012 that he remains in touch with the BBC regarding Torchwood and that a further series would depend on Davies being free from his other commitments.[36] - does not need its own paragraph. Wording is also a problem here.
• "In an October 2005 announcement, Stuart Murphy described Torchwood as "sinister and psychological ... As well as being very British and modern and real." Davies further described it as "a British sci-fi paranoid thriller, a cop show with a sense of humour. ... Dark, wild and sexy, it's The X-Files meets This Life."[37][38] Davies later denied ever making this comparison, instead describing the show as "alleyways, rain, the city".[39]" - Why is this article picking a fight with Davies? Especially with the "Davies later denied ever making this comparison" being a major concern.
• " In continuing the series Davies chose to keep Torchwood more focused on the human condition than its science fiction backdrop." Wording is weak.
• ". He drew inspiration from Buffy the Vampire Slayer noting that "the best metaphors in Buffy came down to, "What's it like to be in high school, as a kid?"" - Why all the quotes? And it needs an inline cite for each one.
• " The depiction of human nature in the fourth series lead to a sequence which many felt to be evocative of the Holocaust." - Cite and expand.
• "Jane Espenson noted that as a series Torchwood "is willing to go to horrible places". She stated that in storylining Miracle Day, the writers "didn't want to flinch away from what mankind can do."[47]" this is reception, why is this in writing?
  • Because she wrote those episodes.Zythe (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Block One of series two, consisting of episodes by Raynor and Tregenna, was directed by Andy Goddard. Colin Teague directed Block Two, which consists of episode two by Moran and episode four by Tregenna, with Ashley Way directing Block Three, consisting of the series two premiere by Chibnall and the sixth episode of the series, by JC Wilsher." is so confusing that is a standout for the errors with the prose.
• " An edited repeat of the second series episodes, suitable for children to view, was shown on BBC Two at 7 pm" Why is this in directing?
• "Richard Stokes produced Series 1 & 2 of Torchwood. Originally, Doctor Who director James Hawes was lined up as producer. After directing the BBC Four drama The Chatterley Affair, Hawes backed out of the project. Davies told Doctor Who Magazine that Hawes "has been having such a good time ... that he's decided directing is his greatest passion, and as a result, he's stepped down."[41][51]" - Too wordy, no need for the quote either.
• "Series 3 was produced by Peter Bennett.[52] Series 4 is produced by Kelly A Manners,[53] with UK filming produced by Brian Minchin, producer of Series 4 and 5 of The Sarah Jane Adventures.[54][55]" - Quite a few issues here. Each should be covered equally and properly covered. Why the mention of the Sarah Jane Adventures? It doesn't seem relevant to Torchwood, and its just "words" at this point that detracts from this already short section.
• As in Doctor Who (2005–present), it is written by Murray Gold.[59] - This needs prose work, and its of questionable relevance as a separate sentence.
• " was re-done specifically for episode 2x5, "Adam"" - 2x5? That's not a normal or explained notation previously described. Please fix.
• "For Children of Earth, a recap of the last episode was played at the beginning of each episode, followed by a title card. The theme was not featured in this, instead only featuring over the end credits." - Unsourced.
• "A new theme arrangement and opening credit sequence is introduced with Series 4 (though a musical motif or sting from the original theme is still audible in numerous scenes). Although each episode of Miracle Day carries an individual title, Torchwood: Miracle Day is the only on-screen title used." - Unsourced and editorializing in parenthesis.

"The series is set in Cardiff and follows the Welsh branch of a covert agency called the Torchwood Institute which investigates extraterrestrial incidents on Earth and scavenges alien technology for its own use, " - No comma, end the sentence here. " its origins outlined in the Doctor Who episode "Tooth and Claw". " Expand this part to iterate it's history with a full sentence and idea. "As the opening monologue explains," - "Drop "As"" it is unnecessary. "he organisation is separate from the government, outside the police, and beyond the United Nations." isn't this a tad close here?

• Overview needs citations
• By now I think you need to copy edit everything through and my eyes started to get tired of checking all the errors. Episodes lack the plot and structure in a meaningful way.
• The themes section definitely needs to be expanded, this is a stand alone article, linking out to another article doesn't allow it to be short, it needs its own basic summary.
• The Spin off section for Torchwood Declassified is lacking context and citations for its release.
• Same for Novels.
• Same for the original soundtrack.
• How is Dr. Who a cultural artefact, why does it matter in the reception section if it is?
• "Angry missive" - really? Is this detail even relevant?
• The further information section is in an awkward spot.
• Editorializing following "amnesia pills" needs to be fixed.
• Ratings need to be expanded and cited. The date formatting should not be in that format, and they are ambiguous.
• "In April 2007, Torchwood beat its parent series, which is also made in Wales" - Just say Dr. Who and drop the bit about it also being made in Wales. Cite also.
• Next sentence also needs a citation.
• "List of broadcasters" is duplicated by the text. Is there a credible use for the list?
• Issues with reference reliablity. I'm listing the numbers, too many to really do otherwise at this point from the January 4, 2014, version. 12 and 13 are not reliable. 26 and 27 aren't. 35 is a blog. 42 is an incomplete citation. 55 is IMDB which is not reliable and should not be used. 57 is a CV which is not reliable. 59 and 60 are IMDB. 67 is a blog. 94 - is it current? 97 is a link to a video. 122 is a blogspot. 124, 125 and 126 are metacritic, not valid. Is mightyape valid for 191, 206 and 208? Ref 237 is from Yahoo groups - definitely not reliable.

So this is just the first pass, but I think this will be too much to really complete in a week - so I'll give it two. Hold for fixes ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review ChrisGualtieri, I have just read your review and I will try and get as much as I can tonight and the coming week. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it is coming along, but one thing. You didn't need to remove all of it. I mainly had an issue attacking the credibility with the denial of something that was already sourced. People are allowed a change of heart on the issue, and no matter if their statements are wrong, we shouldn't draw unnecessary attention to that just because we can. I'd remove the latter "Davies later denied ever making this comparison" portion because of that conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still so many issues left. Its been over two weeks and Imdb and other issues are still present. I have no choice but to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ended for 'personal reasons?'

I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)