Talk:The Quatermass Memoirs

The Quatermass Memoirs 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
July 20, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

GA Review[edit]

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No obvious problems found when checking against the quick fail criteria - on to the substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
meets criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
I reorganised the References section to conform with WP:MoS and customary practice. I would like to see a slight expansion in the lead, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies, is what WP:Lead section says. So we need to have a little about the production and reception. Probably two short paragraphs in total. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC).Y[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
All web links check out. I assume good faith for other sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
All cited sources are RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
None discernible. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~So just a little more work on the lead please, on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)~~Y[reply]

Done! Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, excellent work. I am happy to pass this article as being worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]