Talk:The Cham-Cham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Cham-Cham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Cham-Cham has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 18, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: British / Episode coverage / ITC productions Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the ITC productions task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Why do you only have an article on four Thunderbirds episodes? You have articles on all the Captain Scarlet episodes, so have an article on all the Thunderbirds ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.147.222 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 July 2010

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 09:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written, just a few queries below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
no problems here
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No problems, plot could possibly be trimmed slightly
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems, it's neutral and balanced
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problems with stability; no evidence of edit wars or content disputes.
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, only image has appropriate rationale and source information
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is a well-written article that is very close to GA. I just have a few queries/suggestions/nitpicks below.

There are no apparent problems with plagiarism or close-paraphrasing after checking with CorenBot, Earwig's tool and spotchecks of sources. No links to disambiguation pages and no dead links.

Lead

~~"One of the final instalments of the first season..." - is season how it's referred to in sources? Aren't British tv programmes usually described as having series rather than seasons?~~

This is true - changed to "Series One". I believe that I opted for "season" due to the proximity of "... television series" in the preceding sentence. It seems odd to me to refer to specific "series" within a "television series", but as ever, the classic idiosyncracies of British English dictate otherwise...

~~I don't know the answer to this, but was wondering if the title to a mini-LP should be in italics? The titles of EPs, for example, are.~~

Glancing at some relevant articles, it seems clear that italics are preferred for album titles, while the names of singles use quotation marks. Thanks for pointing the above out.

~~The audio adaptation should be mentioned somewhere in the article~~

Plot

This seemed slightly long to me, on checking the word count I see that it's only just over the recommended 200-500 words, so it's not really a problem, but if you were wanting to cut it down, there is perhaps some detail in the escape part in the final paragraph which could be cut without altering the reader's understanding.

I've trimmed the synopsis a bit, especially towards the end. I believe that a rough guideline for plot sections in episode articles is to write no more than about ten words for each minute of screentime - a summary running to approximately 500 words would therefore not be excessive in the case of the Thunderbirds episodes, which are 50 minutes in length.

~~Are Cass Carnaby and his band currently touring a hotel?~~

~~phone → telephone~~

~~"...start to perform Olsen's latest version of "Dangerous Game" that will doom the latest flight." - repetition of latest - I don't know if that's intentional~~
Again, I don't know the answer to this, but should Thunderbird 1 and Thunderbird 2 be in italics?

I would think so, given that these two machines are both aircraft, and that the Thunderbirds form a collection of vehicles or vessels. Space Shuttle names are italicised in such articles as Space Shuttle Discovery, so it follows that a fictional spacecraft like Thunderbird 3 would incorporate italics in its own name - and it would therefore be logical to italicise the names of all machines in the Thunderbirds fleet. There appears to be some variation on the subject in the book sources that I have used.

Production

~~You've linked Brains' name, but not Penelope's - this should be consistent~~

~~Do you need to link ballroom and skiing?~~

~~Is it this Ken Barrie? (If so, could be linked)~~

Reception

~~Again, do you need to link skiing?~~

I'll place the article on hold for 7 days to allow you to respond to the above. --Beloved Freak 10:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another fine GA review! Resolved points have been struck through. Super Mario Man 03:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've made quite a few changes, it's looking really good now. Considering I don't really have any interest in Thunderbirds etc. in real life, I always enjoy reading your articles! Good work, I'm happy to list it as a good article. --Beloved Freak 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again. Super Mario Man 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary: Olsen's "machine"

Currently, the plot summary states about Olsen's computer: "Skiing down the mountain to Olsen's private lodge, Penelope and Tin-Tin film him operating a strange device that is converting musical notes into a message stating the date and time of the next RTL2 flight."

Is that really what it is? In the episode, the computer screen first shows an enciphered message, and then the plaintext. I had assumed this was a message received from a collaborator being deciphered by means of the computer. Otherwise it would be completely unclear how Olsen could have information about the upcoming USAF flights.

Your takes on it? --Syzygy (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the plot to better reflect the dialogue, which strongly indicates that Olsen is indeed just an intermediary and not the actual source of the information. (Parker, before the chalet scene: "[Olsen] was saying something about expecting a message tomorrow morning." / Tin-Tin, during that scene: "[Olsen's] just been giving his orders for the next sabotage operation.") This is matched by the the plot summary in The Complete Book of Thunderbirds, which I've cited in that section.

On the Cham-Cham itself, the book says only this: "[Penelope and Tin-Tin] see a message decoding from musical sounds." I've changed "converting" to "decoding" to match the source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]