Wikipedia:Featured article review/Quatermass and the Pit/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

Quatermass and the Pit

 * Notified: Angmering, Hammersfan, IJBall, Ian Rose, DrKay, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject United Kingdom, 

Eighteen years after the article's FA promotion in 2004, the article has issues, which I previously raised in the article talk page—e.g. overly long plot synopsis, episode list containing no individual episode synopses, sourcing, and insufficient updates. So far since I raised my concerns, no edits have been made. Furthermore, the article is listed in WP:URFA/2020A as the oldest remaining un-reviewed FA to this date (unless there are other articles from earlier years still tagged as FA). Improvements were discussed and (probably) made long before I raised the issues. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure what we’re looking at here, but if that’s an WP:ELNEVER (link to a violation of someone else’s copyright), it has to go. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are weak complaints.  In particular, the "plot synopsis too long" and "no individual episode synopsis" complaints make no sense taken together.  The article's author clearly thought it was better to explain the plot in one continuous section rather than 6 split-up sections, which is a valid stylistic choice and not a "problem".  "Insufficient updates" - you can't just say this without clarification.  Is there post-2004 material that you feel is extremely important to include?  What is it, if so?  For sourcing - it seems that the nominator is simply complaining that there isn't a citation after every single sentence.  But that's a style only used for extremely contentious topics; I presume that the references are more like covering an entire paragraph.  The article looks fine to me.  Finally, you gave all of a month for responses on the talk page, and it wouldn't shock me if there weren't any partially because this complaint is so vague.  As nominator themselves note, the article was given a look in late 2020 and seemingly passed.  There's a fansite used as a reference twice, but one is for a quoted interview, and the other for the mere existence of a stage play that is backed by another reference, so seems harmless to me.  Nominator should clarify the issues more specifically or this FAR should be closed IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking out my vague points. If the article is not outdated, then I must have worried over nothing. Same for the sourcing part. I brought this here because I couldn't tell whether the article still deserves to hold its FA star after all the years, even with improvements made last year. Also, I thought my language is implied, but I guess I should be more thorough or clearer or something next time I either take an article to a formal review or nominate it as FA candidate. Still, I'll try to clarify the part about the plot and layout: are readers wanting to spoil themselves expected to read the Plot section or the Episodes list... or both? It's hard for me to tell which plot points occurred in which episode. Also, without episode summaries, it's hard for me to know whether the storytelling is either simple or unusual like Pulp Fiction or 500 Days of Summer, though they're both films. Also, I wonder whether the article needs newer or older reviews and analysis, especially for an older series like this. If not, then I must have gotten worried over something that hasn't existed yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Oh, and my comments at the talk page to this date received no replies. It's not because they're "vague" or anything like that. Probably because the talk page has been semi-active or less than that, AFAICS. Also, some of the article's editors are either banned (e.g. Eric Corbett) or no longer active. That's also why I brought the article here. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to write a good article. If you prefer moving plot summaries into episode summaries, that's valid, but it certainly isn't required.  "Storytelling style" is something where it's assumed there's a "normal" chronological order of events unless stated otherwise - movies / TV series that pointedly play with temporal perspective will say so, otherwise you can safely assume it's not Pulp Fiction.  See Jaws (film) for a FA example wherein the reader can safely assume that the movie depicts the events in the same order as the plot summary - I presume the same is true in Quatermass and the Pit's plot summary, that the events proceed in the order described from episode 1 to 6.  Not that complicated.  (I suppose, for the sake of pedants, some occasional markers could be stuck in the plot summary to indicate end-of-episode cliffhangers and the like, but that's a very minor request, SOFIXIT material not FAR material.)
 * For "newer or older reviews" - well, I see contemporary reviews from 50s newspapers, a quote from a 1988 retrospective, and quotes from academics in the 2000s who've covered it, and a 2012 list from the BFI. Seems like a decent range of chronological reaction to me.  SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Close FAR without prejudice for renomination. Nominator admits he's "not sure" above whether this article even qualifies for FA standards; IMO, there's lots of old FA articles that are clearly currently below modern FA standards, so there's no need for FARs of "eh maybe it qualifies, maybe it doesn't" that are just asking a question.  FAR can be reopened if a future nomination cites more serious problems.  SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A diff to the full talk page notification might have been more helpful; SnowFire, are you able to lend any information re SPS on that source? IF we could establish whether the authors of the fan site meet WP:SPS, issues resolved. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I'm not a Doctor Who expert nor a BBC expert, and haven't seen this particular production. So I may not be the best judge here.  That said, it seems like Doctor Who Restoration Team is notable enough to have their own article and be given BBC access, and Mark Ayres has a (thinly sourced) Wikipedia article.  They seem like "experts" on this particular matter at least.  I'm not sure if they meet the letter of SPS as far as being published by someone else, but apparently Ayres's article claims the BBC let him contribute commentaries on the restoration of old BBC stuff, and that's... vaguely in the right area, I guess?   I think they can be used, but I'll grant it's a borderline source that probably shouldn't be used for anything seriously controversial - but it looks like it's largely used for remastering minutiae, so no big deal.  I went ahead and removed one bit of minutiae that had been marked cn in the cleanup, and changed a ref on the VHS / early DVD releases to Revelation Films (which nobody seems to care about online) to a published book instead.  So the DWRT is still used, but only for the explanation of 50s style telerecording and VidFIRE, which I think is valid as that's their area of expertise.  Do you think that's sufficient to be within SPS grounds?  Or in favor of playing it safe and cutting the parts still ref'd to DWRT?
 * As discussed on the talk page, the other questionable source, "The Quatermass Home Page", isn't really used as a source itself, but more as a repository for an interview with Nigel Kneale, so it's really Kneale being cited, so I think that's good IMO.
 * I also added a reference on the Blu-Ray release. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the diff, your edits looks god good and must have been improvements. Still unable to access the book online, but I guess it must've been reliable more than the ones you removed. As you said, there are no more remaining issues at this time, including no more questionable sources just by looking at references list, so I guess the review shall be closed... unless I overlooked something else. --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC); fixed, 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about "absence" of serious issues. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; you come to the same place that three other editors who looked at the article ended up a year ago; that is, in my view, there is borderline but benign use of an SPS here, but nothing rising to the level of needing a FAR. But now we have a FAR, so people need to opine.  I don't think the minimal use of this borderline source warrants either delisting, or removing the text.  Others may disagree.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty thoroughly meh on this one. Agree with Sandy that the minimal use of a borderline source isn't a big deal.  Aside from the potential that Newman 2014 could be used a bit more, I'm not seeing much that's really absent here.  Not our greatest FA here, but I'm also not seeing anything that really warrants delisting. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you saw it already, but I worked in some more Newman 2014 after checking it out at the library just today. (On the downside, despite approvingly citing it above in the FAR, I also removed the 1988 Sunday Times quote because upon seeing the fuller quote in the older revisions, it seems pretty clear it's actually not talking about this serial at all - it cites a different year and a different plot.  So whoops.  But fixed now.)
 * I think it's basically fine as is, per above comments, so would be leaning "keep". Ideally somebody checks the "bonus material" on the Blu-Ray edition that came out and see if it has slightly-more-citable material on the production than old GeoCities fansites, but I don't think I'm going that far, and I don't think it's crucial to maintaining FA status.  (Also, if some brave soul does watch the Blu-Ray restoration version, I'd be curious to hear if the psychic mobs really are murdering people without Martian genes...  the impression I get from Newman is that at least in the movie version, it's more generalized chaos and EVERYONE is afflicted by ancient Martian experiments, just some people are better at controlling it than others.  But maybe the serial was different.) SnowFire (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone think of a UK editor to ping in here? I’m also in meh territory here; seeing it on the mainpage would not cause me to hang my head in shame, although it’s not our finest. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that was an interview done by someone affiliated with the fansite, but looking more closely... it's by Andrew Pixley but he isn't credited on the front page of the archived fansite, so probably not, you're right they're just hosting it then.  Searching around for Pixley's name, it seems he's written some inset booklets for other works about Kneale example, although this may not be the same booklet, as it was from a release years after this fansite was made, unless they re-published an old interview)?  So it's probably a real interview but I'm not sure how to even cite it, because it's citing "some material from an unknown release of Qatermass pre-2004".  Clearly we need an emergency WMF grant to import a Blu-Ray...  any volunteers?!  SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same problem here: I can't tell if they did the interview, or if they are hosting a copyright. I got a free t-shirt from the WMF, but I gave it away. And I don't know how to turn on my TV, much less operate the Blu-Ray that my sons left here. Gotta find another for that! I would not like to delist an article over such minor issues, but we just haven't gotten answers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Found out that Region-B Blu-ray release has special features, but it's incompatible with other Blu-ray players outside Region B areas. The series is available only on DVD for Americans and Canadians (and Bermudans?) at this time. Blu-ray.com doesn't explain much about one DVD release itself. However, able to retrieve info about the DVD release, which turns out to be... barebones. Furthermore, according to a back cover via Amazon (and ebay), another Region-1 DVD release is also barebones. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC. This old article gets negligible page views.  While it may not be the most sparkling of all FAs, neither is it an embarrassment to the suite.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC - not our strongest FA, but I don't think there's a good reason to delist here. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.