Wikipedia:Peer review/Quatermass II/archive1

Quatermass II[edit]

I've recently done some work on bringing this article's standard up after having gone over its immediate predecessor and successor to deal with their citing problems and help keep them as FAs. Having done that successfully, I thought I'd try and get this one to Good Article standard (I don't think there's enough meat on its bones for an FA), and would like any comments about how I could improve it to GA standard.Angmering 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the requested non-visible spaces where required, and also had a go at taking out the redundancies where I could spot them — obviously though it might help if an editor with a fresh pair of eyes could go through and try and spot some that I've missed. Angmering 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it could get to FA if you had the time to address other people's concerns (hypothetically speaking). LuciferMorgan 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a touch on the skinny side for that (it's only about 27kb), and frankly I think attempting to get a third Quatermass serial as an FA would be pushing it a bit as regards people's tolerance of science-fiction articles! But thanks for your kind comment. :-) Angmering 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's FAs smaller than 27kb. I reckon you should try getting it to FA anyway - people aren't bothered about the article subject, but its quality. This I think could get there. LuciferMorgan 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll see what — if any! — further comments come out of this peer review process and then maybe give it a go. Angmering 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request that Seegoon and Yannismarou to have a browse if they're not busy. They usually frequent here and give invaluable advice - I'm sure they'd review the article if you gave them a polite ping. LuciferMorgan 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, will do! Angmering 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

Could you include the composer where it mentions what the introuductory music is?
I'm not sure that I like the sentence construction in "The second in the Quatermass series by writer Nigel Kneale, it is the first of those serials to survive in its entirety in the BBC archives." It's built as if the second main clause is a result of the first, but logically it isn't and it makes the syntax feel a little... "amateur" - not to be harsh. I advise just changing it to "...Kneale, and is...". That's me being picky.
"to prevent the aliens from subjugating mankind." - is "subjugating" the perfect word? I don't know the story entirely, but I'm not sure.
It might be useful to work out just how much 7552 quid translates to in today's standards, because at the moment I have no concept of what that's really worth.
Maybe include plot warning templates?
"An experienced actor from a range of different films and television programmes since the 1930s,[13] Robinson was uncomfortable..." - you do the same thing I picked up on in my first criticism. It's just a matter of taste, but I think phrasing things using syntax like this detracts from otherwise very intelligible and logical prose. You do the same in the next paragraph with "An actor on stage and screen since the 1930s,[14] Griffith gained his highest...".
"Monica Grey played Paula Quatermass; she appeared in a variety of roles on British television up to the 1980s." - is this relevant? Likewise, is "Kneale went on to write feature film screenplays such as Look Back in Anger (1958) and The First Men in the Moon (1964), as well as continuing to write for television, including two further Quatermass serials, until 1997."? I honestly don't know what the movie article writing guidelines have to say about it, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention as some FAR reviewers might consider it extraneous.

To be honest I really can't find any great flaws, and most of the things I've highlighted have been matters of personal taste rather than any form of mistake. If you have any queries, fire away. All in all, great article, and props to you for building it up in what, three days? Great work. Seegoon 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I've changed the sentence structures you mentioned — I think you were right about them. I have also changed the detail about Monica Grey to something more relevant to the production, which I can't think why I didn't mention before in the article anyway. You have a good point I suppose about Kneale's extra credits not being specifically relevant, but I always feel with these things — especially where we have more detailed articles that can be linked to — that it's good to give just a quick flavour of what else people have done, so that if readers are interested they can then click onto the article on that person for more information. It's a personal stylistic view, I suppose, and one I'd be more than happy to remove if people just think it's pointless.

I've also found a rough currency conversion for the £7552, and added a footnote explaining that and giving a comparable BBC quoted figure for current Saturday night drama. Angmering 11:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good revisions - improved flow, clarification on ambiguous points - I personally feel that you've taken the article to its zenith. I'm no expert, but I recommend FAC, as I can't see anything remotely wrong with this. Seegoon 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]