Talk:Cyberwoman

Lisa's Surname

Did anyone catch it? I know she says it but I just couldn't make it out. It's not mentioned in the credits or on the Torchwood site. --Moochocoogle 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it myself. Clever Skybox can record subtitles too :D --Moochocoogle 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallett. As given on the wikipedia entry for Ianto. Admittedly, from Lisa's one-time only use of her name onscreen, it does sound like "Haller" [User: Stripey].

BBQ Sauce

" * In this second appearance of the Torchwood Three pterodactyl, it is revealed that the reptile is attracted to "a sort of" barbecue sauce, which is what the Torchwood team use to identify its food. It's unclear whether this substance is actually the common condiment."

Check out Torchwood.org.uk:

http://www.torchwood.org.uk/html/welcome/pterodactyl.shtml

"Suzie’s devised a special protein sauce that tells it what stuff is fine to eat."

Boots/Shoes

Is it my imagination or did the Dr.Who Cybermen have flat soled boots on, whereas Cyber-Lisa appears to be wearing 2-inch heels ?? -- Simon Cursitor 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not your imagination. Maybe it's just partially-cyberconverted platform shoes... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack's love?

When Gwen asked Jack if he'd ever been in love, he doesn't answer. I think he was in love with Rose, but in the preview for the next episode, you can hear Jack saying "From the moment I saw her, I loved her". Then the old woman says "Me and Jack always argued about the faries". I think he was in love with her from wartime.

Frankenstein

Anyone else reminded of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with the pizza delivery girl's demise? Wolf of Fenric 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack breathing life

I don't think this should be worded this way as it is absolutely unclear exactly what Jack did to Ianto in that scene. It could have been CPR, it could have been a kiss, it could have been something else. It's never been clearly addressed onscreen. I also think it's very misleading having a link to the Day One page as it implies that Jack is using the same technique that the alien in that episode used to transfer itself into other bodies. There is nothing canonical that links Jack and Ianto's 'kissing' scene in Cyberwoman with anything from Day One.--71.202.123.32 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Going to give the article a proper read through shortly and I'll list any issues here. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Plot: Third sentence - I'd suggest wikilinking Torchwood One in the same way that Torchwood Three is linked in the first sentence.

  Done.

• Third paragraph - I'm thinking that there needs to be a bracketed sentence explaining briefly what "deleted" means. 99% of people reading it will know, being fans, but that 1% won't know what it is. I think something along the lines of "(being killed by the Cyberwoman's electric touch)" or the like.

  Done.

• Filming: "secret agent." - needs a direct reference following the quote sentence.

  I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

• Costume and effects: First sentence, same as previous line - needs a direct reference following the first sentence due to the two quotes. I don't see "sexy" in the second sentence as being necessary quote, and so I don't think that sentence needs a direct quote.

  I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

• I think the final two sentences of Costume and effects flow better if they were joined together - for instance "The visual effect of the tools used to create Cybermen were reused from the Doctor Who episode "The Age of Steel", while the UFO footage when the Torchwood team return from the drinks was a tin foil-covered frisbee on a fishing line." However that's just my opinion, I think with two separate sentences it starts to sound a little like a list.

  Done. -- Matthew RD 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very fine article and a pleasure to read. Miyagawa (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry about the bits above, I ended up adding the two cites myself as the required ones were just further down in the paragraphs. Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Happy to promote this one to GA. Nice job! Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Matthew RD 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)