Talk:Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe

Fair use rationale for Image:Codyholdren2.jpg
Image:Codyholdren2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm…
The language is unencyclopedic, and violates Wikipedia's point-of-view policy. I fear to read the rest of the article. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone
I've tagged this article with tone as I feel as-written it has significant tone problems. Below I'll list some examples: In general, I think this article could stand a rewrite per MOS:FILM or WP:MOSTV. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cody, for this outing, leaves behind his sport jacket, white shirt, tie and slacks and, when not in his rocket-man suit wears a black military tunic with many insignia, a garrison cap, and a black mask". This should be rewritten, perhaps more as "In this series/film, Cody wears more militaristic clothing than his previous business attire".
 * "This serial is also a prequel, in that the first episode finds Joan and Ted, Cody's established sidekicks in Radar Men, applying for their jobs and meeting Cody for the first time". This sentence belongs more in the intro section or in a plot summary, but regardless should be rewritten, perhaps it would be better as, "This is a prequel of Radar Men, and covers the recruitment of Cody's established sidekicks, Joan and Ted".
 * "The Ruler also gained a hot blonde female sidekick, played by Gloria Pall, although she had almost no dialogue but rather simply stood beside the Ruler's communications scrambling device in a strapless white evening gown, while he received reports and gave instructions to his minions". This is a sentence that gained complaints by another editor above. The "hot blonde" remark in itself is fairly clearly informal, and the sentence is rather long.

In theaters in 1953 & on TV in 1955 wrong
The intro states, "It was released to theaters in 1953 and on television on 1955." Unfortunately, this is not possible, or at least was a violation of industry regulations at the time. The proof is the history of TV's Adventures of Superman. The entire first season of 26 episodes (with Phyllis Coates instead of Noel Neill as Lois Lane) was in effect the pilot, being produced "on spec" and with no guarantee of getting on the air. To both promote the project and help defray costs if it did not sell, the producers began filming with a two-part episode, "Unknown People," which they quickly released to theaters as a Saturday matinee feature, Superman and the Mole Men. Once a deal with Kellogg's got them an on-air committment, the producers discovered that they fell afoul of a regulation that prohibited anything made for and released to theaters after 1948 from being shown on television. Consequently, "Unknown People" parts 1 & 2 were not televised until about 1960, when this rule was repealed and the series was released into general rerun syndication. This same rule means that the subject of this article could—or at least should—not have been shown on television in 1955 after a 1953 theatrical run. The other way around, maybe, but this has to be wrong. I know that neither linked-in article mentions this, and the one for the series even contradicts it, but Film Fax magazine published a three-part article c.2000 that went into great detail on the development and first season production, and reported this in no uncertain terms. Note also that List of Adventures of Superman episodes gives "November 23, 1951" as the original airdate for both parts (the article on the feature gives this as the date of its theatrical opening), even though the series didn't get on the air until September 1952. IMDb does the exact same thing, while TV.com almost does, giving the date of both parts as December 18, 1951, and making minimal acknowledgement of the feature film version. When combined, the three essentially corroborate a lack of genuine original airdate (for the purposes of this discussion only, of course). So I repeat, Commando Cody would have been in violation of industry regulations had it played on TV in 1955 after a 1953 theatrical run. Did Republic honcho Herbert Yates break the rules and get away with it, which if true is notable and should be pointed out, or does this article contain misinformation? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)