Talk:Quatermass and the Pit

WP:URFA/2020

This is the oldest unreviewed featured article—last reviewed in 2004. It still looks good to me, but I don't watch TV at all, much less British TV or science fiction. So that it can be marked as satisfactorily reviewed at URFA/2020 for still meeting WP:WIAFA, I am asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC. (Or from anyone else who has this article watchlisted.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § WP:URFA/2020

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've given [this article] a quick MOS:TV(/MOS:PSEUDOHEAD) tune up, and referenced the ratings in the episodes table (though I'm just assuming the book source has the ratings for all of the episodes – I did not/cannot check that). In general, the article does seem to be in decent shape, though I suspect it could be referenced/sourced more. Also, in MOS:TV terms, I'm not sure where the 'Background' section should go – it's unclear to me if it belongs at the "top" where it is currently, or whether that should be folded into 'Production'. Similarly, I'm not quite sure where the 'Parodies' section should go. I'll let other WP:TV regulars take a look at it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Never seen the TV program (or "programme" given it's British!) but a big fan of the movie so I've had it on my watchlist for a while -- I think it's pretty decent but will give it a closer look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Background and Parodies are fine how and where they are; I just merged a short Special Effects subsection with Filming. Also removed a couple of uncited and semi-trivial statements. The only thing I'd still like to get is a good source for the 2018 Blu-Ray release, ideally in a review rather than just a mention in Amazon or whatever. Aside from that I think the article is in pretty good shape. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about two of the sources - the Doctor Who Restoration Team and The Quatermass Home Page. The latter is sourcing stuff about video releases, so isn't a major problem, but the former source is used for more substantive content. Anybody know anything about the former group? Looks kind fanclubby to me (a non-Brit). Hog Farm _Bacon 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. We have info about who the authors are here click on the FAQ link (WP:SPS experts ???), but it does look like a fan site. For this to be acceptable, we need to determine if the authors meet SPS. Some digging around will be needed, as it appears that no one from any WikiProject intends to help here. One would think the BBC WikiProject would know who those people are. Since this FA was written before inline citations were required, there was ZERO about the sourcing at the FAC. Considering the lack of interest in the article, I wouldn't mind if we brought it to FAR and cut it loose, but I will spend some time seeing if I can track down anything about the authors of the website. It appears they were somehow contracted by the BBC, so it is possible the source could be usable, if we could be sure about who they are.

Unless Ian or someone from the BBC Project knows something about this project, our choices are to FAR this, or delete the text. It seems to be mostly text about the digital release; do we think the article comprehensive without that text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also got several CN spots, including one that isn't tagged. Anybody familiar with Headpress or Mad Norwegian (two of the publishers)? I have absolutely no knowledge with which to judge these. I personally wonder if a dig into the sourcing is needed, since it's a very old FA and a sourcing look doesn't seem to have ever been made. After another glance, the Quatermass Home Page is also used to cite a bit in the influences section. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I just added those to places that I didn't think that source could be used, moving it to where I did think it could be used, maybe. If we need to do this much work on an article no one (except Ian) has taken an interest in, and that is so old it has never had a proper review, I suggest FAR is the solution. I pinged three WikiProjects, so did our best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ian Williams is mentioned here; it is a BBC publication, so that bodes well ... not enough, though.

Google books turns up a bunch of books, but no preview, so I can't see what they're saying: [1]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR needed

I'm concerned about the article's compliance with WP:FACR today. The Plot section appears very long; most of its details should be moved into the Episodes section, which lacks summaries at this point. Also, some other statements still remain unverified/un-cited. Moreover, probably either Reception section may still need newer, more recent views, or the article may need Legacy section. --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Edward Burnham

I’ve watched episode five of Quatermass and the Pit, tonight.

And noticed that Edward Burnham is briefly in it: as an unnamed ‘Official.’

John Scott Martin is also credited as a ‘TV technician.’

Is it possible to get all three pages updated to show this … ?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I Don't Get It

How did those three-legged arthropods construct that space vehicle? Professor Bernard (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Why aren't they wearing clothes? 2A02:C7C:59DD:E900:491F:BEA5:EC54:5883 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)