Talk:The Quatermass Experiment

It has been suggested on this article's Featured Article Review page that some reliability criteria be established for the Doctor Who Restoration Team website as a source. The Doctor Who Restoration Team are a group of Doctor Who fans who work within the technical side of the television industry, who since the early 1990s have provided extensive restoration to Doctor Who video and DVD releases for BBC Worldwide and latterly 2 entertain Ltd. They also performed restoration work on the Quatermass Collection DVD release in 2005, hence the link to the page on their website explaining their work on that set. The main page of their website explains a bit more about them. Independent verification of the team's activities and status comes from the official BBC Doctor Who website, and a feature in The Guardian. Angmering 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

While the desire to limit fair use images is laudable, I think that it's a shame that the article has lost all screenshots save the title card. I think that an appropriate fair use rationale could be written for including one image from each version of the programme: perhaps Image:Quatexp02.JPG and Image:Quatermass2005-2.jpg, as representative samples. I don't think that the DVD covers really suffice as replacements for the screenshots, and this seems like the exact sort of circumstance for which {{tv-screenshot}} is intended. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that we were generally encouraged to use only one fair use screenshot per article, which is why I removed the others and replaced them with free alternatives. Or is that a recommendation, rather than an actual policy? Angmering 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that if screenshots add distinct information to the article, or accompany relevant critical commentary about distinct elements in the article, you can have more than one. It's a slightly fuzzy area in our policies: there's some discussion here and, more recently, here — the latter shows a case where the fair use experts thought there were too many fair use images, which I don't think would be the case here. I think that one screenshot from each version of the programme would be acceptable. If you're willing to brave the storms at Wikipedia talk:Fair use we could ask for clarification there, but I fear that you'd get contradictory answers, since fair use is such a disputed issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll put Tate back in, although I'll reduce the resolution of it on the image page as I have with the title caption. I'll grab a new one for the 2005 shot, though, as that download copy screengrab is fairly ghastly. Angmering 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"In America the film was renamed The Creeping Unknown after the title Shock! was considered for that territory [?], and an alternative opening title sequence with that name was prepared." What does this mean exactly? Marskell 12:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was using "terriroty" instead of "country"... erm... not sure why. They went so far as to make an opening title sequence using Shock! for the US, before they decided on The Creeping Unknown instead. Phrasing is a bit ugly, isn't it? Apologies. Angmering 13:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Quatermass Experiment achieved favourable viewing figures in 1953, opening with an estimated audience of 3.4 million for the first episode, building to 5 million for the sixth and final episode, and averaging 3.9 million for the entire serial.^[1] The Times estimated that one year before The Quatermass Experiment was broadcast, in August 1952, the total television audience consisted of about 4 million people.^[2] In March of that year, the BBC estimated that an average of 2.25 million people watched BBC programmes each evening.^[3]

Almost all the standard viewer numbers predate the Coronation, which in popular myth at least is supposed to have massively increased the number of television sets in homes. Are there any figures available for potential audience numbers in July 1953? Timrollpickering (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should the remake have it's own infobox (as all the details are different from the main infobox)? --h2g2bob (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the word "live" doing in this: "broadcast a live remake of the serial"? 31.52.254.73 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Quatermass Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128012507/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1948184.ecetohttp://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1948184.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302221228/http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Q/htmlQ/quartermass/quartermass.htmtohttp://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Q/htmlQ/quartermass/quartermass.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Quatermass Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806171559/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/quatermass-article.htmtohttp://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/quatermass-article.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reviewing for WP:URFA/2020. Addressing these comments may help this article remain a featured article. Pinging main contributor Angmering. Heartfox (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Some of the citations do not appear to be reliable/have editorial oversight (IMDb, The Quatermass Home Page, Doctor Who Restoration Team, Mausoleum Club).
• Viewership figures would benefit from footnotes.
• Fn 15 and 21 lack page numbers.
• The last sentence has no citation.
• I don't know if a BBC DVD should be used to cite "Viewers' responses were generally positive" for a BBC program; how can this be a neutral source?
• Are there any other newspapers/magazines from the time period that can be used to cite/add stuff that are now available online?

The article is now littered with cn tags. It requires a FAR. Desertarun (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply