Talk:Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 14:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and leave some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 14:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'll make some comments as I go through. then summarise at the end. SilkTork *^YES! 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Images pass GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Very stable. The article has been mainly edited by SuperMarioMan for over 3 years. SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a very well researched and detailed article. I am wondering, however, if it is is too detailed for the general reader. The article is very long, and, for example, the Series synopsis has four sub-sections that are a little detailed for a general overview. The Series conclusion subsection could perhaps be handled as a single sentence indicating that the final episode was inconclusive. Is there a source for if there was an intention for a second series, and if so, why one was not made? SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plot synopsis section could definitely be trimmed down. I'll try to get round to it later today - should be easy enough. To answer your question, there was never any possibility of a second series of Captain Scarlet from everything that I've read about it. By the time the final episodes were being completed, the next puppet series was already in pre-production. It just seemed to be "traditional" for many of these old Anderson series to end on a "clip show" episode - but in the case of this series, it didn't offer any resolution to the continuing storyline of the "war of nerves" between Earth and Mars, which was rather a disappointment. SuperMarioMan 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Formatting. There are a lot of subsections. This creates a long TOC, and breaks up the flow. Some of the subsections could be dealt with as paragraphs within the main section, or, if it is felt that some break or emphases is needed, then ; creates a softer sub-section that doesn't appear in the TOC. SilkTork *^YES! 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've so far got rid of the "Spectrum" subsection in the "Characters and casting" section, and changed the "References" subsections to just plain bold text. I'll try to identify others that can go or be merged. SuperMarioMan 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are lots of cites, and this appears to be a well researched and well sourced article. However, the first item I check, the opening sentences of Race, gender and symbolism, appears insecurely sourced. There are three sources given. One, unfortunately, is not available online, one is a fansite, so is unreliable, and the third is an article in which the series is mentioned in a discussion on the use of colour to represent good and bad - not that the series was racist. I'd like to see some more convincing sources for the allegation. Or if not possible, could you copy out here the relevant passage from the Bentley book. SilkTork *^YES! 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the racism part. I've been trying to search for relevant material from 1993 newspaper articles themselves, but haven't turned up anything on racism - just the small review from the Independent for the first episode. The FAQ link basically just duplicates what the Bentley book says, so I'll ditch that reference. The academic study mentioning the series could probably go also. The Bentley passage (p.122) runs:

Unexpected additional attention focused on the series' political correctness (or perceived lack of it) when criticism was aimed at the use of the names White and Black to represent the good and bad characters respectively. The programme had been targeted by the anti-racism lobby to illustrate their objection to the everyday use of the word 'black' to convey evil or villainy, arguing that when the same word is used to describe skin colour, young people become confused and equate ethnic difference with wrongdoing. Unfortunately, they made a terrible mistake by choosing Captain Scarlet to make their point, since Captain Black, the villain, is white while all of the ethnic characters, Lieutenant Green, Melody Angel and Harmony Angel, are on the side of good. The media's attempt to brand the series as racist and politically incorrect backfired and left the people involved in the campaign with egg on their faces when Gerry Anderson pointed out that Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons had been one of the first children's television series to feature ethnic characters in major heroic roles. As a series which provided positive role models for children of ethnic origin, Captain Scarlet should have been lauded by the anti-racism lobby rather than ridiculed.

There is another reliable book source to support this: Filmed in Supermarionation - A History of the Future, by Stephen La Rivière, which goes behind the scenes of the Supermarionation series. It was only published last year, and on page 160, it is stated:

Cy [Grant] vigorously applauds the Andersons' decision to push the boundaries and introduce a black leading character and repudiates the accusations of racism levelled at the series in the 1990s for featuring a villain called Captain Black.

SuperMarioMan 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Article is balanced and neutral. There is appropriate praise and criticism. This is particularly noteworthy as it can be so difficult to achieve. A frequent problem in getting an article through GA can be achieving a NPOV when the main editors are fans of the subject. Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable and conveys the information accurately. Any copy-edit problems I'll correct as I see them. SilkTork *^YES! 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold

This is a well written, well researched and well presented article. Most quibbles I have are minor, and can either be ignored for GA purposes, or I can tidy up myself as I continue to read it closely. I have yet to finish considering the references, but on the whole the referencing seems sound. I have that quibble on the racism charge, so I will be checking out sourcing on other claims made in the article. Other than the points raised above, the main issue I have with the article is the focus. It is very detailed and should be trimmed back for the benefit of the general reader. Example sentence that can be trimmed: This - "Meanwhile, the rings pan over the supporting characters in various environments and their names are credited onscreen, from Captain Blue driving an SPV, to Destiny Angel flying her interceptor, to Colonel White sitting at his Cloudbase control desk, to the other Angels waiting in a standby room, to Captain Black standing in a moonlit graveyard," can be cut to "Meanwhile, the rings pan over the supporting characters in various environments and their names are credited onscreen." There is rather a lot of description of the opening sequence. Also, changing the formatting will make the article look and feel lighter and will aid flow. So, the article is on hold for seven days mainly to:

• Trim back excessive detail.

Any questions please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I'll work to sort out the issues highlighted. SuperMarioMan 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• I have checked out and removed most of the external links as per WP:External links. Consensus on external links has got stricter over the years, and very few links are now acceptable. While checking them out I looked at the tv-ark site which shows an opening sequence with a voice-over I am not familiar with. I looked at the Titles and credits section, and this version is not mentioned. Was there a different American voice over to the British one? SilkTork *^YES! 09:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you clarify "an alternative voice-over for all episodes" - was this something that was used in different re-runs or regions, or a voice-over that alternated during the series? SilkTork *^YES! 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The TV Ark video is of the voice-over that was used exclusively for the pilot episode (I have amended the external link description). The standard voice-over beginning "The Mysterons. Sworn enemies of Earth ..." was still Ed Bishop, seemingly in character as the American-accented Captain Blue. I took the pilot voice-over with the intention of adding it the episode article, where it might be more pertinent, but I have reinserted it. I think my point on the "alternative voice-over for all episodes" was that it was that it wasn't used on one episode exclusively (unlike the pilot narration). I also meant "alternative" in the sense of "different", not "alternating". The journal source here states that it is just a "rare version", possibly used for US broadcasts, so I have changed the description accordingly. All this stuff about the alternative voice-over began, if I remember correctly, when an anonymous user added in the dialogue without a source, but which I finally found a reference for. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Other media. I have been looking closely at the media sections, and have brought some of them together, though I feel that Other media and Later productions could also be grouped together. Looking at them as a whole the question then arises as to if there should be a sub-article on media franchise called Other media or Media franchise - as in Firefly_(TV_series)#Media franchise and Firefly media franchise.

• I also put in some fact tags , as some information in the media section is uncited. SilkTork *^YES! 10:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I hope that this has now been addressed satisfactorily. On the video game, I have referenced two sources including the manufacturer's site, while novel publishing dates are attributable to the Bentley book. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Such a large solenoid could not be placed elsewhere in the body else to allow for natural physical proportions, since the puppet would have had to be resized to the extent that it would have become hard to operate." This is not clear, and is also not what the source is saying. The source is not talking about placing the solenoid elsewhere, the source is saying that if the body were scaled up to match the head the puppet would become difficult to control. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. SilkTork *^YES!

• Thanks. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am uncertain if the Puppet Reaction paragraphs should stay in Puppets or be moved to Reception. It is essentially critical commentary, so it belongs in Reception, though I can see why it has been placed in the Puppets section. SilkTork *^YES! 12:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The revised version of the "Reaction" subsection contains the blockquote, which I would argue might disrupt the flow of the Reception section if placed among the text there without being marked by a subsection title. For ease of finding reception information directly related to the puppet design aspects, not just the series in general, my personal view is that the "Reaction" section should be kept. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pass

There has been some splendid work done on this article, and I have enjoyed reading it, and being involved. To move forward, some consideration needs to be given to the Other media section - either to reduce it to something more manageable and in proportion to the rest of the article, or to moving the bulk of the material out into a new article, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons media franchise, per WP:Summary style. Also, I have moved out some material from the lead regarding the status of the series (I don't think that coming 82nd out of 100 or 33rd out of 50 is distinctive enough for the lead), but it would be appropriate to have some authoritative statement regarding the status of the series. Also, perhaps have some summary of the response to the puppetry in the Reception section. It seems that one of the most notable aspects of this series is the move forward in puppetry, so some commentary on that in the Reception section would be appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"And may I add my thanks and congratulations too?" Well done to everyone who helped promote this to GA status. Bob talk 18:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)