Talk:Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 13:13, 13 July 2011 (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):
On the whole this is well written, some issues below.
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):
There's more that could be said about the place of the Deep Throat character and this episode in the overall mythology and themes of the show, but for this GA criteria, I think there's enough.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems with neutrality other than the statment about "positive" reviews in the lead. This is mentioned below.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problem with content disputes or instability.
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):
One non-free image with fair use rationale. This is adequate for GA, but the rationale has clearly been copied & pasted and should be more relevant to the use of this actual image in this article. (eg. "Poignantly illustrates the related episode"?)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This is looking very close to GA, I just have some nitpicks listed below, mostly related to prose.

No links to disambiguation pages, no dead external links. Copyvio tools and source spotchecks show no copyvio problems. Spotchecks for WP:V are ok.

Lead

"FOX" should probably just be "Fox", which is the name of the company. "FOX" is just how they stylise it.
Details of broadcast dates should be mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article. There's not enough for a separate section, so perhaps just make "Reception" "Broadcast and reception" or something
I'm not sure you need to mention the UK broadcast date in the lead, or at all to be honest. The show was broadcast in many non-US countries, so why just mention one? Canada would be more relevant since it was filmed there.
The manual of style recommends using month day, year format for US-related dates rather than day month year (WP:STRONGNAT)
"It has received positive reviews..." - this is not quite borne out by the reception section so perhaps "mostly positive", "generally positive" etc. Even "mixed" might be appropriate; at least one of the reviews mentioned is fairly negative.

Plot

Why was it reported as a kidnapping? Did the man disappear after the soldiers entered his home?

Production

"UFO literature just links to UFO, so best to remove "literature" from the link to keep it intuitive. It's also not really clear to a casual reader what "UFO literature" is exactly. Perhaps it could be reworded to include a link to Ufology or something, if that is what is meant.
Mention that Area 51 and Nellis Air Force Base are in Nevada for some context?
Consider linking to Roswell incident and giving the year for context. I'm sure most TXF fans will be familiar with this, but not all readers necessarily will be.
"military project" links to United States Air Force which doesn't realy add anything, and is repeated straight after
"inspired by a rumor that the [USAF] had started a project..." - what kind of project? To do with UFOs? It's not very clear why this would be important enough to write an episode about it. Is this referring to Aurora (aircraft)?
The "cast" subheading doesn't seem to fit very well with what is contained in that section. It has informatio on locations, gun training and character names too.
There's some overlinking going on, eg. restaurant, United States, Vancouver (repeated in quick succession), gun, money
"...whose actual name was Bob Budahas" - actual is redundant here
"...a running joke for The X-Files crew under the course of the show" - "over the course"?
Capital "P" for Pong?
"Carter said the effects came out "good, given the restrictions" they had" - "came out good" is ungrammatical so, if that's what he actually said, I'd expand the quote to make that clear, otherwise it needs rewording.
"a mismatch in the sky can be seen" - could you clarify this a bit? I'm not really sure what it means.
"As a result of this, the crew added Anderson's voice as an experiment." - I'm not sure if you need this sentence or not. It seems to make just as much sense without it.

Reception

"Entertainment Weekly gave the episode a B+ rating..." - the magazine rated the episode or a writer for the magazine rated the episode?
"Due to..." was used incorrectly, so I've reworded this a bit; see if it works for you

I'll put the review on hold so that you can respond to the above, but I will have another look through it.--Beloved Freak 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed what I can of your points (which is 90% of them). Concerning the Aurora line, I assumed based on the context that the article you linked to was the relevant one, however I don't have access to the commentary used to verify this. I kept the BBC date in just for comprehensiveness, taking out of the lead and put into the renamed "Broadcast and reception" section; though if you think it should go entirely then that's ok. As for the Entertainment Weekly article, the source (here) doesn't actually list an author - my assumption was that it was a multiple-author piece, so I just credited the publication itself. I'm not sure if there's another way to phrase it to clarify that, especially since I can't be sure it wasn't just one uncredited writer. Thanks for your comments, though, and for the fixes you made as well, I really appreciate them. GRAPPLE X 19:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree we shouldn't link to that Aurora if we're not sure. As for the EW thing, I don't really like seeing it the way you have it - I'd prefer "a writer for EW said..." or something, but I see your point that we don't know if it was multiple writers that wrote the review, so it's fine as it is.--Beloved Freak 20:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it as "In a retrospective of the first season in Entertainment Weekly..." so as to stop the publication being directly worded as the reviewer. Also removed the Aurora link until it can be proven either way. GRAPPLE X 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that all looks good. I'm happy to list it as a Good Article.--Beloved Freak 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]