Talk:Colony (The X-Files)

Colony (The X-Files) 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.

Colony (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 2) series, a good topic. It is also part of the Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 1 series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 8, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
April 20, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 3, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Fair use rationale for Image:Colony 2x16.jpg

Image:Colony 2x16.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colony (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
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:

Will review this one. Ruby 2010/2013 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Plot section is excessive, and should be trimmed down (a la Meet Kevin Johnson)
Provide proper wikilink for pro-life priest
No need for the refs in the plot section (it's assumed the episode itself is the reference)
Who thought the lines were "very hard" and "specific"? The actress?
No need for saying Canada, but you should keep the comma after Vancouver
Italics issue with last sentence of writing section
Need space before A.V. Club review
Any more reviews out there?
Reformat BBC air date

On hold for seven days while comments get addressed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got most of this - let me know if anything else could be trimmed out of the plot section. I'll see if I can find any more reviews but it's tricky finding them out there. Thanks for taking the time to review this for me. GRAPPLE X 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes look great. I'll give this a little more time for you to track down a review- have you tried any newspaper banks? Databases are usually available through colleges and libraries. I've found them very useful in the past, particularly for older dated episodes and films. Ruby 2010/2013 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a check over JSTOR or the like at the university library, been meaning to head back soon. Scoured online again there for what I could find and didn't manage anything. GRAPPLE X 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Again, I gave you seven days for the review, so take your time. Just respond here when/if you find something. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took a different tack and tried scholarly reception instead, was able to double the length of the paragraph with some mentions in books. I'll be at the university library this Monday so I'll be able to check JSTOR then, but in the off-chance I don't get finding anything or can't update here in time (IP blocks are always a worry with non-private computers), I'm just dropping this note. GRAPPLE X 05:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions look good. I'm passing this for GA (another review wouldn't hurt though, if you're still planning on going to the library to beef up your other X-Files articles). Keep up the good work, Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, couldn't find anything on JSTOR, and still have no idea how to work LexisNexis. :( GRAPPLE X 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]