Talk:Tunguska (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Again, "The episode is one of those which helped to explore the series' overarching mythology." I feel this is kind of a clunky why to write this, maybe say "The episode helps to explore and expand the series' overarching mythology."
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD, no summary or mention of production
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just before the lead plot summary, maybe add, "In this episode..." I think it helps to separate fact from fiction
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"FBI special agentFox Mulder" space between 'agent' and 'Fox'
Appears to have been fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"His parter Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson)m" remove 'm' after 'Anderson)'
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, maybe cite where you found all the guests stars at the very bottom, maybe after "Tegan Moss as Young Dana Scully" Is there a way to put a cite after the words "Guest stars"?
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no need to wikilink and parenthesis who played who in the plot section if they are in the lead

"...infecting him with the oily black worms" I would just write "infecting with the black oil." But to each his own
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They decided to create a story which had connections to the Russian gulags, which led" two 'which's right after each other
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and it was felt that this two-part story was a good place to expand upon this as it allowed the production crew to "stretch the limits" of their resources and imagination." rewrite into "and it was felt that this two-part story was a good place to expand upon this, allowing the production crew to "stretch the limits" of their resources and imagination."
Fixed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my copy of I Want to Believe, the episode was viewed by 18.85 million viewers and not households.
I see you got that one already. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All good
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough coverage, no sign of trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neural POV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit warring
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One picture, properly tagged. Are there any other free pictures to spice up the production section, it's kind of boring right now?
Stuck one in of the Allan Hills rock that inspired the episode. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Looks good, I pass.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]