Talk:Collateral Damage (Millennium)

Collateral Damage (Millennium) 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.
Review: October 23, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Collateral Damage (Millennium) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Millennium's "Collateral Damage" featured Coast to Coast AM host Art Bell playing himself?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Collateral Damage (Millennium).

Wikipedia

Television: The X-Files Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force.

Reference error

Hi there- at time of writing, the links in footnotes 6 and 7 are broken. Good luck with the GA nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out; turns out I had the authors listed in the wrong order in some of the {{sfn}} calls. Should work now. GRAPPLE ^X 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Collateral Damage (Millennium)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article shortly. Daß Wölf 02:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review & comments

Thanks for taking your time to write this article, and many thanks for your efforts in sourcing it :) I very much enjoyed reading it; there are just a few quirks to take care of. Here's my full review: Daß Wölf 03:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is very well written :) There are just several things I'd like you to have a look at: In Production and Broadcast and reception, four paragraphs out of five start with "Collateral Damage". Please replace some of the mentions with "the episode" or similar constructs, as this is a bit repetitive. The three paragraphs in the lead are too short to stand by themselves. They should be merged into two or probably just one paragraph. "FBI agent Emma Hollis (Klea Scott) remarks..." Remarks to whom? "At his hideout, Swan retrieves an antidote for the pathogen; meanwhile, Hollis has managed to discover his location based." Something's missing here. "Perry recalled none of them recognising* the actor..."* I think the article should use American spelling considering it's an American TV series "Previously they had been represented with a series of rapid and vague images;" I'm not a native English speaker but I think "represented by" is correct here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per MOS:INTRO, the lead should summarize the article contents. You need to add to it more content from Production.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Very neatly done. I'd just suggest archiving the two {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} refs using the Wayback Machine (see here for details), but that's up to you.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All of the content is referenced and checks out as far as I could verify except for this: "Perry was inspired to write the episode due to his interest in conspiracy theory literature, which he finds interesting but does not believe in. The Coast to Coast AM radio show featured in the episode also served as an inspiration, and its host Art Bell agreed to appear as himself." This is referenced by ref #5, The Philosophy of TV Noir, p. 226. Maybe we're seeing different things on that page, but on Google Books I could only corroborate the bolded part of the quote (footnote #23 on the aforementioned page). Can you elaborate on this?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Reliable sources are used throughout the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All clear.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All aspects are adequately covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'd normally like to see a bit bigger article, but seeing as this is just an episode, and of an underrated show at that, I trust this is what was available.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here, definitely :)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image is properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm putting this on hold for a week to give you time to address the issues. Daß Wölf 03:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of this article. I should have addressed all of your comments. The citation not featuring the information mentioned was an error on my part; the sentence was a composite of information from two sources and I left one of those out; it's been added in again now. I was unable to archive the AV Club link as the archive URL would only redirect to the site's main page and not the article itself, but the other link was archived fine. And I believe in this case "represented" is fine without "by", but I reworded it to say "depicted" instead just to be sure. If anything else seems amiss please let me know, and thanks again. GRAPPLE ^X 12:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived AV Club via Archive.is. It's not the greatest archive site out there but it usually works on sites where Wayback Machine doesn't. As for the rest, all checks out so that's a ✓ Pass :) Congrats Daß Wölf 17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]