Talk:The X-Files season 6/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Woo, last article needed for the full set.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
"The season continued on from the 1998 feature film and focused heavily on the Syndicate, a "shadow government" group attempting to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials, and their fight against FBI federal agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully." -> Isn't season 6 one of the lightest in terms of mytharc episodes? Outside of "Two Fathers"/"One Son" I'm not really sure the Syndicate are that much of a presence; perhaps this sentence could be changed to reflect the increased presence of newer characters, with Spender and Fowley getting more time, Kersh introduced, etc?
"restoring the burned X-Files" -> I'd specify that these are physical files or documents.
That first plot paragraph uses "X-Files" quite often, perhaps "the department" or "the division" could be used instead of the second or third mention.
The Smoking Man, Cassandra, Hosteen, and possibly ol' Chuck could do with having their actors mentioned in brackets
Thinking the summary might be a bit long (I know it condenses quite a lot of material, but the half-dozen episodes here are given as much length as 15 are in the Mythology DVD sets). You could trim it without losing any plotting if you cut down on adjectives and descriptive language (for example "the sickly looking Marita Covarrubias" could just be "Marita Covarrubias"; "Fowly, however, arrives" -> "Fowley arrives"). If you'd like me to do this bit I don't mind doing that.
Under "Background", once you've specified US$ once you can just use $ for all the subsequent uses.
"the series proved to be so much of a cash cow for Fox" -> "the serious proved to be so lucrative for Fox"
"After five seasons in Vancouver, Canada, The X-Files moved to Los Angeles, California" -> "After five seasons in Vancouver, Canada, production of The X-Files moved to Los Angeles, California". (Writing offices, etc, already were in LA beforehand)
"The Beginning" was the first episode to be filmed in Los Angeles, California" -> either use just "Los Angeles" or try "in the new location".
"both series director Kim Manners and Gillian Anderson" -> add "star" or "actress" before Gillian Anderson so as not to look like she's also a director (she isn't yet by this stage)
"Freelance episodes were written by Daniel Arkin, Jim Guttridge, and Ken Hawryliw." -> Hawryliw isn't so much a freelance writer, he's a prop guy for the series. Meisler (vol 4) p. 25 supports this if you want to add that.
"Cast member David Duchovny also wrote his first X-Files episode solo" -> properly the series name should include a The, but that would read awkwardly here. I'd drop the "X-Files" bit and just have "his first solo episode".
In the "Ratings" section, if a decimal ends in 0 (like 15.20) then drop the 0.
Some of those award categories could be linked.
There's a few instances of hyphens being used instead of em-dashes in the episode summaries.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
The episode citations (1-5 and 15-17) should list roles for the people named—for instance, Kim Manners directed "The Beginning" while Chris Carter wrote it. Just stick their roles in brackets after their names (Abduction should be a good example).
Also, the Emmys and Golden Globes refs are missing publishers (Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Hollywood Foreign Press Association respectively; here's an awards list to give you a few full citations to both awarding bodies).
I'm thinking ref 37 could be given as a note, rather than a ref, that reads "The episodes were included in the DVD collection The X-Files Mythology, Volume 3 – Colonization, released by Fox."
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope seems alright to me. One thing I'd consider adding is that the cost of producing an episode greatly increased because of the move (not the budget, but the price they paid for making things); I'm 99% sure it's the Hurwitz and Knowles book that mentions this. It definitely puts the diminished use of big action sequences into light, they couldn't afford submarines and exploding trains any more. :(
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Grand.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Fine there, no problem.
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:
Sole image used is fine. The prose might benefit from being broken up with a free image though; perhaps one of Duchovny with a caption mentioning his desire to move locations; or even a picture of Los Angeles (File:Los Angeles, CA from the air.jpg?).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Sticking this on hold for now. Shouldn't take too long getting everything sorted, let me know if you need a hand with any of it. I'm looking forward to seeing another topic finished! GRAPPLE X 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've fixed everything, except the plot; I'll try to trim that down in a bit. Also, I'll dig around for that bit about everything getting more expensive. I seem to remember reading that as well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cut the plot down a bit and found and added about the price increase and exploding trains. ;)--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They really should have exploded more trains. Changes all look good to me. Passing this one now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]