No. Four was recalled to Galifrey, and dropped her off (in the wrong city, but apparently the right planet and time).

Sarah Jane got booted originally when the Doctor was called back to Gallifrey.

He left her in the wrong place...which was utterly lacking in meaning to me-who-knows-little-of-UK-geography.

She did want some Doctor closure. but it's not like she was pining in some strange place far from home, or anything.

1) They have a greedy murderous trader with a big nose and they name him "Solomon"?

And disabled, at that. The episode was a real "win" on a number of "stepping directly into of problematic stereotypes" fronts.

There were a lot of bits of this one that I liked, but it fell into the "too many ingredients" category, because random Nefertiti and not!Quartermain seemed really random and superfluous to the plot. I get that they didn't want to use River, or make it future-Torchwood or UNIT that was gonna shoot down the ship, but my in medias res tolerance for things where I've seen all the res there is and it clearly being a one-off episode and largely outside of this large and complex universe that has been established is low enough to inspire me to write this post.

Is there not a meaningful distinction between disabled and injured? Or is it too loaded for that?

I like the idea of the Doctor running around and grabbing random people and having adventures. And then going "Oh! Ponds!" and getting some of them too. Still way too human, but it's lessening up on the claustrophobic run of contemporaneous human English-speaking women.

I'd love to think they could at least hook us up with an alien that looks human (hardly an earth-shattering concept), but I hold out little hope for that. I think they rely on 21st century touchpoints too much, whether explicit or not. At this point, the companion isn't our viewpoint character, are they? Can't they be one more thing we look at, rather than the lens through which we look?

They have a greedy murderous trader with a big nose and they name him "Solomon"?

And disabled, at that.

I don't get the reference.

At this point, the companion isn't our viewpoint character, are they?

I wish the show would embrace this more.

I don't get the reference.

It's not a particular reference, and not particularly in conjunction with the Jewy McHebrewson-ness of the character, just a bonus stereotype.

Solomon is a pretty standard Jewish name. They are playing to a Jewish stereotype. (Not on purpose I'm sure , but someone should have noticed )

Or if you were only asking about he disability: Disabled = Grotesque = Villain is a very old meme in pulp fiction. Phantom of the Opera and Dick Tracey are both well known examples.

2) Queen Nerfiti chooses to have a romance with the white big game hunter in 1902 Africa rather than go back to rule her people?

Were they actually in Africa, or did they convince the Doctor to let them hang with the dinos?

Also, seemed less romantic than fun times with some not so bright, but quite fit, man candy. Which, you know. Rupert Graves. Who can blame her?

I seem to be in the minority but I thought this week's Who was terrible. Sloppy plotting, annoying (not in a good way) and unfunny robots - even if they were voiced by Mitchell and Webb, who I normally rather like - perfunctory background to the new "companions" and uncharacteristic behaviour. The Doctor sends the bad guy off to his death without a second thought? What was that all about?!

Williams and Son were about the only bright spots.

I'm willing to chalk it up to "one for the kids", but next time they need a stronger story to go with the cool title.