Talk:The X-Files/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be working my way through the article and adding any queries where I see fit, most likely in a random order. Feel free to make corrections, or correct me as I go along. As this is voluminous, I suggest you notify the major contributors of the scope, to double check sources and make corrections if you cannot (though this will might be on their respective watchlists). Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Do not cross out comments yourself, it's up to the reviewer(s) to be the judge of whether corrections have been made and it distorts whether I (or any one else reviewing) have checked something or not. Just reply below individual bullet points.

Lead

The article does not comply with WP:LEAD. As a generalised point, the lead should act as summary for the entire article. If done successfully, it will draw the reader into wanting to read the rest – that I cannot say about this. For one, there is nothing about the conception of the show, which is in the main body and themes are hard to construe. See The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. as an example of a ideal lead.

General

No problems with the use of sources.
No dab links, nor dead for that matter.
One image is up for deletion.
The title image could do with a better rationale, just in case it may get deleted.
Citation tag needs addressing
Seen plenty of overlinks of Fox Mulder's name. I'd imagine it's the same for Scully; remove and it's fine to use their last names thereafter.

Series overview

This is discombobulated; while most sentences are clear and concise, there is no evident structure. WP:WEIGHT has to be addressed – why is the third paragraph just a sentence? It seems to me the last three paragraphs have been added on by various editors at different stages. Compare that to the first two, which is how it should have been indited.

Grouping the sentences is lazy, and is not what I was looking for. You need to expand on each point, specifically the last sentence. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'long experience' the same as childhood?
'by' is redundant in "She is initially assigned to the X-Files to debunk Mulder's theories by supplying logical..."
Cigarette-Smoking Man is all hyphenated and must be corrected throughout the article.

Cast and characters

The table needs to comply with MOS:DTT, specifically rowscopes need to be added in the first column.
task force is not an hyphenated word
Starting the sentence with "The Smoking Man" in his description is repetitive, perfectly fine to substitute it with 'He'.

Production

Backstory checks out, from this article I've obtained off the Guardian archive. You may want to use it if you feel it has any use. (published on June 26, 1998, p. 34)

~~Conception: "as the producers hadn't understood its idea", avoid contractions → had not~~
Conception: "For that he met with a scientist from Yale", place comma between 'For' and 'that'
~~Conception: Should "3 percent of all Americans" be "Three percent of all Americans"~~
Conception: What is the relevance of "Actor Darren McGavin, who played Carl Kolchak in Kolchak: The Night Stalker, appeared in two episodes of The X-Files as Agent Arthur Dales." being in its current position?
Conception: "The early 1990s cult hit Twin Peaks is seen as a major influence on the show's dark atmosphere and its often surreal blend of drama and irony." is questionable and needs a ref.
Conception: Departure of David Duchovny needs citations
Conception: End of Series and I Want to Believe should be added under that section
~~Music: "Chris Carter didn't know whom to ask." did not~~
Music: Citations needed for first three sentences
Does 'Departure of David Duchovny' deserve it's own section? If so, why is it only the briefest of sections. It can do with expansion, prefably going in depth for his reasons for leaving the show, what did the press think about it.

Broadcast

Home video release needs citations
nonconsecutive does not need a hyphen
""Within," the season 8's first episode" surely it should be eighth season or season eight going by consistency.
Why does season eight's rank have two references?

Impact

Critical response: Is this really a critical reception, or just what journalists thought of the first few episodes—jump—and the last season.
Legacy: "The show is parodied in The Simpsons season eight episode "The Springfield Files," which aired on January 12, 1997, during The X-Files' peak in popularity" bit in bold redundant I feel and can be removed.
Legacy: "Mulder and Scully (voiced by David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson)", WP:MOS states if you mention a full name, it is acceptable to use his last name thereafter.
Legacy: "Welsh music act Catatonia released the 1996 single "Mulder and Scully"," 1998 even. "huge hit in the UK" → "huge hit in the United Kingdom"

References

What's the work for Ref 2?
Is Ref 4 reliable?
~~Ref 7 is The Times, not Time.~~ That and Ref 104 need a (subscription required) template given the newspaper website have gone paywall
~~Work for Ref 12 missing~~
Is it acceptable to use a YouTube video as a reference (Ref 13), going by WP:YT?
Author missing on Ref 31
Why does Ref 59 have a different date format to the rest? The Washington Post should be italicized.
~~Ref 66's author is not BBC, should be removed~~
Why is Ref 79 and 92's location formats different, despite having the same publication?
Ref 93 was published on October 10 2002. Remove The Age, it was first published on The New York Times
~~Ref 84 was published on September 9, 1993~~
PopMatters a reliable source?
No author on Ref 85
Ref 97 formatted incorrectly
Ref 118 published on BBC News and is the work, BBC therefore becomes the publisher
Ref 123 published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian
Book citations are inconsistent

I added some things in there, as this article really still needs some work before it is promoted. I'll try to fix what I can.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provided changes are made during the time this is placed on hold, then I would be happy to pass this. But, as I've said before, this is a very premature nomination. Considerable work is needed; I don't recall TBrandley notifying the major contributors before nominating, especially for a big article like this. I'm reviewing this with a WP:FAC in mind, because I'd imagine along with WP:PR, that's the next step. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only outstanding issues I could find, for now. On hold for a week. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been more than a week, and although I gave the nominator until Sunday to make changes, it does not look like anything will be done going by track record. I am failing the article. GAC isn't the same as WP:PR; do not nominate something if you are not going to get it done and haven't contributed to it at all. – Lemonade51 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]