Jump to content

Talk:Captain Midnight broadcast signal intrusion/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Surachit (talk · contribs) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    My only concern here is Reference #7 (Signal to Noise). It looks to be a personal website, which isn't considered a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. The reference is heavily used, as well (13 citations).*
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]
  • MacDougall surrendered to the authorities and was served with a court subpoena after a tourist overheard him talking about the incident while on a pay phone off Interstate 75. This is chronologically accurate, but it makes it sound like the tip was the main thing that lead to him being captured. From the rest of the article, it sounds like the most important part of the investigation was tracking down capable transmitters and stations equipped with a specific character generator.
  • I think the lead should include the area affected by the jamming (eastern half of the US, per the Jamming section) and/or the number of potential viewers (not currently in the article)
  • Under an agreement with his attorney, he plea bargained Isn't a plea bargain an agreement with the prosecutor? I suppose "attorney" here is referring to the U.S. attorney that was prosecuting him, but phrasing it as "his attorney" makes it sound like a reference to his defense attorney.

Background

[edit]
  • When the industry began charging viewers for access to its services via cable... Would it be possible to add when this happened? From the context it was sometime between the 1920s and the 1970s, which is a pretty big timespan.
  • Satellite dish owners began protests over scrambling, saying that clear signals from cable channels would become difficult to receive. I find this sentence a little confusing. Isn't the idea of scrambling to make it impossible to receive (meaningful) signals, not merely difficult? I know that scrambling can be broken, but the way "clear signals" is specifically mentioned here, it makes it sound like the problem dish owners faced was that they would receive unclear (i.e. subpar, or fuzzy) signals.
    It's also kind of stating the obvious. The whole idea of scrambling is to make paid channels difficult to receive. I think this sentence should be re-worded. Maybe something along the lines of "dish owners began protests over the high fees charged by [HBO/cable companies]," or over "free access to broadcasts."

Jamming

[edit]
  • As I mentioned earlier, I think the number of HBO subscribers in the area affected (i.e., the potential number of viewers) deserves a mention. Reference #3 states:

    It was seen in the Eastern two-thirds of the nation, which accounts for more than half of HBO's 14.6 million subscribing households

Arrest and prosecution

[edit]
  • After media and industry pressure forced the FCC to act, MacDougall was charged after surrendering to the authorities. The wording makes it sound like the FCC only acted because of media/industry pressure. The pressure is significant and worth mentioning, but I think the FCC would have acted anyway. As reference #11 puts it:

    One of the principal responsibilities of the FCC is to insure that no one interferes with the licensed users of the nation's airwaves

    Reference #6 mentions:

    Even before the break-in the Federal Communications Commission had warned it would deal harshly with anyone attempting to interfere with TV programming.

  • He was interviewed by the major news stations in the western hemisphere Seems like a weird turn of phrase. Was he interviewed by the major Central and South American news stations? And not interviewed by European ones?

Aftermath

[edit]

Nice work overall, I thought this article was a very interesting read. Placing it on hold for now to let you respond to my comments/suggestions, and to clear up the issues with reference #7 (if I am wrong, let me know, but it seems to not be a reliable source). –Surachit (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Wow, that was fast. I'm passing it now. –Surachit (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]