Talk:Squeeze (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A few required prose tweaks, but overall pretty solid. Article should pass once suggested changes are implemented.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
Perfic'.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): (focused):
Yeah, it'll do length-wise.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Perfic'
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Perfic'.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Perfic'
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what changes you're requesting - you've mentioned that there are changes requested but you don't seem to have listed them. I could just be missing something, though, and forgive me if I am, but I'm just not sure what you're asking for.

GRAPPLE X 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. I go through my reviewing articles in Notepad and I must've forgotten to paste it in. Gah, have to do it again now. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was just worrying that I'd lost the plot... GRAPPLE X 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be busy from Saturday through to Monday, which would be the end of the week 'on hold' length - would there be any chance of either finishing this by tomorrow or extending the time out a little? From now to tomorrow night I can do anything that needs done, just I'll not be able to check back for anything for a few days after that. GRAPPLE X 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not going to fail this from a week, I haven't even done the review yet. I'm going to see if I can get around to completing this at some point (again grrr), but there's plenty of time. I'll try to get it done so that you can make all changes by the time you leave. Thanks for your patience. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Thecheesykid has retired from editing Wikipedia, I'm going to list this as requiring a second opinion, to see if someone else would be able to finish off this review. GRAPPLE X 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump on to review soon. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

"It was written by Glen Morgan and James Wong..." It -> "Squeeze"
Fixed.
Add ratings data to lead
Fixed.
Just a personal preference thing here, but I like it when the characters' actors are stated in the plot section, not the lead (i.e. add David Duchovny after Fox Mulder etc) in plot
Fixed.
Why is the last sentence in the plot section cited?
It's the whole section, as opposed to the last sentence. This was how all these episode articles were when I started. It's not how I would have done it, but I figured it would be harmless to leave it in anyway. If it's a problem to cite a synopsis I can take it out.
"Coming after two mytharc themed episodes, "Squeeze" helped establish the fact that the show could cover other paranormal subjects as well, and was the show's first "Monster-of-the-Week" episode." Change bolded to The X-Files
Fixed.
Be consistent with your ref formatting (either use templates for all, or make them all like ref 3
Have templated ref 3. Are the manual short citations okay, though?
""Squeeze" premiered on the FOX network on September 24, 1993". FOX -> Fox
Fixed.
No need to wikilink Glen Morgan in reception section
Fixed.
Remove EW.Com from ref 6; same with others refs (remove The Independent from title parameter, same with UGO.com etc)
Fixed.

Still not done Ruby2010 comment! 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, missed one in a different section. Thought all the cited web pages were just in the Reception section. :(

Ref 11; page number for Hurwitz?
Page 39 - it's a book with two authors, Hurwitz and Knowles. I had thought the semi-colon was the way to separate two co-authors, or should I use an ampersand?
Compare formatting for refs 3 and 8; be consistent
Fixed ref 3 to use {{Cite video}}, the same as 8.
" The plot for "Squeeze" was also adapted as a novel for young adults in 1996 by Ellen Steiber.[13]" Using the primary source (the novel Squeeze) to cite this is not enough. Find an article from a newspaper, interview etc indicating the episode plot inspired the novel
The book is a novelisation from the X-Files series of books (#4 in a series). I can't find anything I know for sure to be a reliable source, but would this count? It lists the novel as an "X-Files adaptation".
Den of Geek, PopMatters, and UGO Networks are not italicized (they're websites)

Den of Geek still italicized Ruby2010 comment! 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, that's the template adding italics to a parameter so I missed it in the edit window. I've got it now, by moving the site name to another parameter.

Fixed.

On hold for seven days while my comments get addressed. Thanks for being patient Ruby2010 comment! 18:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time with this. I've fixed what I can, there's some things I'm not sure of yet - if you want the citations for the plot section removed, or if the citation for the Hurwitz and Knowles book is formatted correctly, and if the source for Steiber's book would be adequate. I appreciate you looking over this for me, thanks. GRAPPLE X 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot citations can stay if you like, but they're not necessary (and might confuse people into thinking they're needed for all television plots). I would change Hurwitz; Knowles, p.39 to Hurwitz and Knowles, p.39. Lastly, add this World Cat entry to help cite the Streiber novel. There are a few other minor comments that still need to be addressed (see above). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think I've got the things I missed the last time around, and I've added the link you gave me. Thanks a bunch for that, I'd never have found it. I used the template's quote parameter to make it clear what the link's being used to prove, but if that's unnecessary it can be stripped out. GRAPPLE X 23:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for GA. Nice work, Ruby2010 comment! 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]