Talk:Ice (The X-Files)

Comments on the comments

Before the copy edit, I'm taking a look at the FAR and responding to some of the comments made. Some of the reviewers' comments can be helpful when you write future articles, but you should also be aware that not all of their criticisms were on-target. They wrote:

"Written by Glen Morgan and James Wong, while directed by David Nutter": Using "while" suggests these events occurred at the same time.

There's nothiing wrong with good old "and." There should also be no comma: simplified, it's "written and directed." Can you see that "written, and directed" by itself looks wrong? Adding extra modifier phrases doesn't change that. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"the episode is a "Monster-of-the-Week" story, unconnected to the series' wider mythology": Having read a few X-Files articles now at FAC, I'm not too sure that this line is necessary. Certainly, not too encyclopaedic and the general reader is probably not expecting a connection to anything. And it is not mentioned in the main body, which may be a better place for it if it must be included.

Agreed: save that for the body and make sure that it's referenced and not your personal observation. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"watched by 6.2 million households": Picky, but can a household watch anything? (Perhaps it can, technically, but not the best phrasing). Perhaps watched "in"?

I like your solution, but I think the reviewer was wrong. Ratings systems use "households" as their unit of measurement. Do not the Nielsen ratings people use the phrase "broadcast...watched by (X) households" and not "watched in (X) households"? However they word it should be accepted as the correct phrasing. I think the reviewer is assuming "household" to mean a place rather than a group of people. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: next time, use the phrase "television households," as in "watched by 6.2 million television households." Dementia13 (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Morgan was originally inspired": I'm not sure "originally" adds anything here. I'm not sure you can be inspired any other way.

What was intended was to say that the inception of the script came at this point, later details can take inspiration from other places but this is where the first kernel of an idea came from. Have used "initially" instead but I'm open to changing or dropping that. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Inspired" implies "originally." It's redundant to use both. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Chris Carter has cited": I'm never sure about using "cited" like this. Why not just something along the lines of "Other influences include" or "among other influences named by"

I think there's actually a warning against this misuse of "cited" in Wikipedia's style guidelines. "Cited" has a specific meaning and is not a synonym for "named," "said," "mentioned" or "stated." Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

""Ice" was originally intended as a bottle episode": Why name such an obscure technical term in the lead? It is not as if we are short of material which could be included instead.

I felt it was a defining element of the episode (it's why the cast is so small and the plot so tense, for example) but if you think anything else is more deserving I could move that up instead. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's my first time seeing the phrase "bottle episode." Defining element though it may be, that may be too jargon-ish for the lead and would fit better in the body. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Another reviewer mentioned "gratuitous quotes:" avoid quotes where a paraphrase would work better. They rarely add anything special, and they force you to fit the other prose around some unencyclopedic phrase. Dementia13 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit done. I think I've addressed all of the reviewers' concerns and then some. Good work on the article. Dementia13 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. Everything looks fine, but I wonder if MOS:LQ is all in order? Marking Satisfactory, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sandy—may as well double check since it'll affect all the other articles I've put through FAC; is the issue the placement of terminal full stops outside of quotation marks? I do this consistently as I find it much neater and I believe it's still compliant with logical quotation. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)