Talk:The Myth Makers/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 19:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Will take this one, comments to follow soonish. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Section by section prose and content review

• Lead: Katarina, who joins the Doctor by the serial's end. sounds more like she joins him in the Greek camp, not that she becomes a companion.
• After assuming their positions as story editor and producer just before this serial? At the beginning of the season?
• "lack of continuation from the previous episode." better IMHO to name the episode, so from the previous episode, "Mission to the Unknown"
• some brief extracts recorded on 8 mm film, which has been released on DVD The extracts have been released? Hard to release 8mm film on DVD.
• Will have to revisit lead later.
• Conception and writing: Is there an obvious reason why Galaxy 4 has italics and "Mission to the Unknown" is in double quotes?

  Multi-episode serials (such as Galaxy 4 and The Myth Makers) have their titles italicised, single episodes (such as "The Exploding Planet", "Mission to the Unknown" and "Temple of Secrets") are quoted. This is normal for TV stories, and see WP:WHO/MOS#General. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, good to know, so there is a non-obvious reason to do it. It does look baffling that stories are typeset differently depending on the number of episodes they have, but if that is the standard, so be it. (For me, a single episode story is much more similar to a multi-episode serial than to a single episode within a serial. I find it difficult to see the fundamental difference between "Mission to the Unknown" and things like The Face of Evil where the individual episodes don't even have names.) The type of consistency chosen (emphasizing the number of episodes over storylines) here makes the formatting look inconsistent. —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  From the start in November 1963 until "The O.K. Corral" in May 1966, on-screen credits and the Radio Times only used the individual episode titles, and each episode closed with a caption like "Next Episode: The Nightmare Begins" or similar. However, all episodes except one were written as part of a longer serial of typically four to seven episodes, which would have an overall title (in this case The Myth Makers) which was internal to the BBC and wasn't normally used on publically-available material at the time (it wasn't until Jean-Marc Lofficier's The Doctor Who Programme Guide (1981) that a list of the actual story titles for 1963-66 first became generally available). "Mission to the Unknown" was an anomaly in several ways - other than the 90-minute special The Five Doctors (1983), it was the only story of the entire original run (1963-89) to comprise a single episode; it didn't feature any characters that appeared in any other episode, not even the regular cast (although William Hartnell was named in the closing credits, that was a contractual obligation); it had no continuity from the previous episode nor into the following episode; it wasn't so much a story in its own right but was more of a prequel (or extended trailer) to the twelve-episode The Daleks' Master Plan (in between came The Myth Makers). So, since "Mission to the Unknown" had only an episode title and no story title as such, we use episode naming and formatting conventions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting that the individual episodes appeared so much more important, I had no idea (I didn't start watching Doctor Who until ten years or so ago, in preparation for moving to England, and now I generally prefer Tom Baker to Hartnell). I'm happy to accept that "Mission to the Unknown" is an exceptional case. I consider my question answered. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the construction to which ... were satisfied before; is this my lack of education / language skills?
• Cotton officially commissioned the first two episodes of the serial now I'm confused; wasn't Cotton the one whose work was commissioned?
• both intellectual and humorous what do you mean by "intellectual" here? cerebral? clever?
• the fourth was once called or "Is There a Doctor in the Horse?" clearly the "or" needs to go or something is missing
• though some evidence contradicts this statement not sure we should accuse Cotton of saying something untrue in wikivoice; "according to Wright"?
• Costume supervisor Daphne Dare was deputised by Tony Pearce for the first episode, while regular make-up designer Sonia Markham was unavailable for the first two episodes, replaced by Elizabeth Blattner, who had supervised the show's first two serials. This seems overly convoluted, wouldn't it be enough just to say who did what?
• Casting and characters: renew Purves I assume he renewed the contract, not the man
• Filming: a model of Troy, which was established on location "on location" sounds like the opposite of "in the studio"; am I misunderstanding something here?
• a total of £10,214 consider using {{inflation}}?
• Critical response: mixed responses, with confusion that the storyline from "Mission to the Unknown" had not immediately continued; the performances and production was considered mediocre, though some welcomed the added humour and the historical setting copyedit

Overall it reads like a well-researched and rather comprehensive article. I have a few queries above and another round of copyediting would not hurt, but it doesn't seem far away from GA. I'll comment on the criteria in the section below, but this will have to wait until tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria checkbox

Formatting is fine, MoS compliance better than mine apparently. References are appropriately formatted, no traces of original research. The article covers everything it should, and the amount of detail is not excessive. No issues with stability or neutrality either.

• The fair use rationale for File:Trojan Horse, Doctor Who 1965.png could use a bit of work. Why does this pass WP:NFCCP item 4? (There doesn't seem to be a clear original source). The BBC uses a different image to identify the serial, see [1].
• What makes Smith 2021 a reliable source? (It does look great but we should be careful with self-publishing)
• Sources: The text is very much reliant on Wright 2017, which I can't access. To do my spot checking duty, could you quote the sentences supporting the following please?
  • 6 corrupted variations of their true Greek form
  • 16 model of Troy, which was established on location and filmed using the Schüfftan process
  • 20 action had been taken

Think that's all. —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Kusma! I appreciate your thoroughness.

I was hesitant to use Smith 2021 for the same reasons, but ultimately considered it reliable for its purpose since (a) it's only being used in two instances, to cite release dates and publishers, and (b) the author actually owns physical versions of the books, and is thus able to verify these. This information is supported by Wright 2017 too—I've edited to clarify this—but Smith is used to reference the specific dates.

Here are those quotes:

• 6 — "[Cotton] also noted that since the war had occurred 150 years before the Greek poet Homer had published his Iliad – another prime source – many of the names found therein were corrupted variations of the true Greek." (p. 74)

  Article: "several of the Greek names in them (and in Homer's Iliad) were corrupted variations of their true Greek form". Close to the source, but perhaps just about OK.

• 16 — "Wood's team created a model of Troy which was set up on location and filmed through a partially reflected mirror using the Schüfftan process, allowing actors to be seen moving about inside the gates and courtyard in the distance" (pp. 79–80)

  Article: "Wood and his team created a model of Troy, which was established on location and filmed using the Schüfftan process, through a partially-reflective mirror allowing actors to appear to be moving around the set." - close paraphrasing.

• 20 — "There was general agreement with the views of BBC1 controller Michael Peacock that the current serial had been 'too brutal'; head of drama Sydney Newman noted that action had been taken" (p. 86)

  Article: "the general consensus (led by BBC1 controller Michael Peacock) was that it had been "too brutal"; Doctor Who co-creator, head of drama Sydney Newman, said that action had been taken, and head of light entertainment Tom Sloan felt that the finale was "far above the heads of child audiences"" close paraphrasing again.

Hope that helps. Please let me know if there's anything else! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain: Thank you for giving these quotes. I am satisfied with most of your responses. Unfortunately there is an issue with the spotchecks: the second and third quotes especially fall on the wrong side of paraphrasing the source too closely; they are structurally identical with just a few words changed. As the entire article is based on Wright 2017, I think it will need a deeper check for other instances of similar WP:CLOP issues. Would you like to look through the article to check and fix these and other instances (if there are any) and then we see how we continue? —Kusma (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma. I've made some edits to address your concerns; please let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain: Thank you for your edit, the article looks much better now. Can we do three more spot checks so I can feel good about assuming that everything is clean now?

• 9 "The episode titles changed over time, especially as the BBC vetoed Cotton's use of puns in the titles"
• 15 "During filming, Haywood grazed his hand on a shield, and Kendall was blistered and grazed; as a result, some of Kendall's scenes were refilmed on 30 August. The following day, Lynn cut his hand during production, which required additional refilming."
• 21 "An Audience Research Report received mixed responses, with confusion that the storyline from "Mission to the Unknown" had not immediately continued; the performances and production were considered mediocre, though some viewers welcomed the added humour and the historical setting."

By the way (and no action necessary from a WP:GA? perspective) Stephen James Walker is once linked and once unlinked in the bibliography; as it is a redirect to Telos Publishing it is perhaps not worth linking. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Happy to provide as much verification as you need.

• 9 — "Cotton's punning episode titles had to be changed, since the BBC did not like them (although Small Prophet, Quick Return survived after Tosh fought for it); the last episode appears to have been called A Doctor in the Horse (or Is There a Doctor in the Horse?), allegedly vetoed by Wiles in favour of The Horse of Destruction." (p. 77)
• 15 — "Haywood grazed his hand on a shield, and Kendall was grazed and blistered during the swordfight; consequently, Monday 30 saw a remount of some of Kendall's scenes. On Tuesday 31, James Lynn, playing Troilus, performed some of his Horse of Destruction sequences on the plain; here, Lynn cut his hand, and filming had to be carried over again." (p. 79)
• 21 — "On Wednesday 17 November, the Audience Research Report on Temple of Secrets was compiled, and the audience sample of 176 gave a below average reaction. Many were confused that the Mission to the Unknown narrative had not been continued: "Several... wondered if a mistake had been made and the wrong programme put out." This had caused both severe disappointment and complaints that the series no longer made sense. Some found the historical setting a change from outer space and welcomed the touch of humour. The acting was considered mediocre and the production 'stagey'." (pp. 86–87)

Hope that helps. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think these are acceptable, but please always remember to use your own words, especially when relying mostly on a single source. —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.