Talk:Milagro (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I have to say, this probably ranks among my least favourite episodes of any television show.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Given things a light copy-edit to fix anything I saw wrong. I've simplified down some of the figures listed—9.0 is the same as 9, for example.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Seems grand. I made some changes to ref 12, as it's better to add navigational notes in a manner that looks deliberate—sticking them in the |title= field can lead to them being overlooked.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Not keen on how brief the "reception" part of "Broadcast and reception" is. I have a review for it in the Shearman and Pearson book I'll add, and I think there has been mention of this episode in some of the articles we've cited before. I'll take a check through those today.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral/unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is uncontroversial, article is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are mostly fine. One is commons (and I can think of another article I'd like to use that in so I'm glad I saw it here); the non-free one could perhaps mention why that scene is "poignant" (it's already mentioned in its caption so it's not a big issue).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Going to put this one on hold for now. The crit 3 work I'll handle but I want to be sure the review is sorted before I start adding information to the article. Aside from that it should be good to pass. GRAPPLE X 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool, I'll sort through some of the articles we've used to see if I've missed something.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Shearman and Pearson review, found some other stuff online too. Looking much more rounded now, so I'm going to pass this one. Well done. GRAPPLE X 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]