Talk:The Mysterons/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- yes
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- no problems here
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- no problems here
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I enjoyed reading the article - about a topic I am completely unfamiliar with! It's very close to GA with just a few issues to sort. The main problems, as I see it, are: a bit of overlinking, a bit of over-citing and a little clarification needed for those of us that are not familiar with the series. In some places there are too far too many citations. Some sentences you have three citations to the same source, which is not necessary. In other places you have two or three citations for a single sentence that could perhaps be backed up by just one source. You don't need to cite every sentence. Sometimes one cite a paragraph is ok, although you need more if there is a mixture of sources. Too many citations makes it more difficult to read, especially when they're appearing in the middle of sentences. As far as linking goes, make sure that you only link to articles that will help a reader to understand this article, that provide context or more relevant information. I'll go through each section in more detail:
- I hope that the situation appears better now. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox
- I'm not sure that you need so many citations in the lead. Generally, citations are only included in the lead to back up particularly contentious details; anything likely to be challenged by the casual reader.
- I have removed some of these. Others remain on the rationale that the appearance of production details (such as the start of filming), even within the lead section, may well prompt readers to enquire to themselves about attribution, and that it would be better to present a source for such factual detail immediately within the text rather than oblige them to read through the rest of the article first. SuperMario Man 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll agree to disagree on this one. I still don't think you need all of those, but it's not a GA requirement, so it's up to you!--BelovedFreak 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed some of these. Others remain on the rationale that the appearance of production details (such as the start of filming), even within the lead section, may well prompt readers to enquire to themselves about attribution, and that it would be better to present a source for such factual detail immediately within the text rather than oblige them to read through the rest of the article first. SuperMario Man 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, the infobox shouldn't need those three citations; they are all repeated in the text. Is there any reason to keep them? ie. do you think that they are backing up facts that the reader will immediately want to challenge?- Perhaps you could make it clear who or what the Mysterons are? Maybe just preface it with "alien race" or whatever is appropriate.
- "The episode... was also recommended during a repeat run on BBC Two in 1993" - please state who recommended (ie. critics)
- There's no need to link Earth
Does "repeat run" need to be linked?
- Plot
Do you need to link 2068; it redirects to 2060s - do you think that article provides relevant context to this one?- You could perhaps link "surface of mars" as all one link to geography of Mars, which in turn links to Mars anyway.
Is Martian Exploration Vehicle right? The Zero-X article states that it is a Martian Excursion Vehicle. Or does it not matter?- It is definitely the first. I have corrected the error in the Zero-X article. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, Earth doesn't need to be linked- "the officers are killed ... and are reconstructed" - is there any way of making it clearer what they're reconstructed as?
- Colonel White is introduced suddenly, it might help to specify who he is. Likewise, Captain Blue and the Angels (particularly as the latter aren't wikilinked)
- I don't think you need to link "concealed on his person"
- Could you clarify what Cloudbase is?
- Don't need to link "English"
- "Observed by Captain Black, Scarlet awaits the arrival of Spectrum Helicopter A42, which has been hijacked by the Mysterons and fires on Blue" - who fires on Blue? Scarlet or the helicopter?
"Later, the reconstruction of Scarlet returns to life, no longer under Mysteron control and now apparently "indestructible"" - this is a little unclear. "the reconstruction returns to life". I'm not sure what to suggest but I'm not completely clear what's going on.- I have attempted to clarify the more esoteric points of the plot, as recommended. My concern is the length of the summary: approximately 500 words for a 25-minute episode (double the length as guidelines suggest, the recommendation being 10 words per minute of screentime, hence approximately 250 words in this case). I was attempting to keep the plot section as short as possible by excluding expository text, but it is necessary for some readers, as pointed out. There is convoluted plotting for such a short runtime, and some sequences are difficult to describe both concisely and comprehensibly (the Mars sequences in particular). As the plot is rather complicated, I feel that the longer summary is justified, but others may disagree. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying it a bit. The summary is a little long for an episode, but I think that stories like these need a bit of extra explaining due to the unreal aspects that some readers will be unfamiliar with. I also think it warrants a bit extra as it's the first ever episode of the series. Later episode articles may not need summaries this long.--BelovedFreak 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have attempted to clarify the more esoteric points of the plot, as recommended. My concern is the length of the summary: approximately 500 words for a 25-minute episode (double the length as guidelines suggest, the recommendation being 10 words per minute of screentime, hence approximately 250 words in this case). I was attempting to keep the plot section as short as possible by excluding expository text, but it is necessary for some readers, as pointed out. There is convoluted plotting for such a short runtime, and some sequences are difficult to describe both concisely and comprehensibly (the Mars sequences in particular). As the plot is rather complicated, I feel that the longer summary is justified, but others may disagree. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Production
"...Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, who generally wrote the first episode ..." - "generally" is a little vague, can that be any clearer?Do you need to link guest role?
- Broadcasting
Could this heading be renamed as Broadcast? It sounds a little neaterYou don't need to link London here. I'm not sure you need to link it at all, but at this point, it's already been linked
- Reception
could you state who Francis Matthews is?Could you state the date of the BBFC classification?
- References
Print sources should be in italics, non-print sources not in italics. I've fixed these.- Is tvcentury21.com a reliable source? Is it official?
- In the absence of an official site dedicated to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, tvcentury21.com is probably the closest substitute. Its articles and other information are regularly updated. The citation to this site (the music recording schedule) is used elsewhere, including the main series article, where no issues were taken with its reliability during that article's GA review. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, and I see that it's not being questioned at the FAC for that article, so I'm happy with that.--BelovedFreak 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of an official site dedicated to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, tvcentury21.com is probably the closest substitute. Its articles and other information are regularly updated. The citation to this site (the music recording schedule) is used elsewhere, including the main series article, where no issues were taken with its reliability during that article's GA review. SuperMarioMan 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- General
Is there a reason for formatting the dates as Month Day, Year? As a British topic it owuld make sense to format dates as Day Month Year. (WP:STRONGNAT)
A final point: is the title for the article correct? Per naming conventions for television episodes it should be The Mysterons (Captain Scarlet); was this a conscious choice to avoid confusion with the article about the Mysterons?
I'll place the article on hold to allow these issues to be addressed. Please feel free to ask any questions or argue any of the above points!--BelovedFreak 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, good work, I'm happy to list it as a Good Article. I'll leave the article naming issue with you. Good luck with its further development.--BelovedFreak 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the approval! On the naming, I believe that no disambiguation is actually required at all, since there is no other topic on Wikipedia titled "The Mysterons". The problem is that there is a redirect page using that name (linking to the article "Mysteron"), so this episode article is impossible to move at the moment without administrator assistance (which I am currently seeking). Otherwise, thank you very much for this review. SuperMarioMan 00:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)