Talk:Two Fathers (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello. I will review this article. --Edge3 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'Two Fathers' is the 128th episode and the eleventh episode..." - Please rephrase. It can't be two things at once. Done
All dates need commas after them. Done
"first part of a two-parter" - two-parter is unencyclopedic Done
"When the unexpected return of Cassandra Spender and an attack by alien rebels forces the Syndicate's hand in a move that threatens the survival of their carefully-crafted conspiracy." - Whole thing is a sentence fragment. Done
"The episode earned a high Nielsen household and syndication rating when compared to other episodes of the sixth season, it was generally positively received by fans and critics alike." - Whole thing is a run-on sentence. Try splitting it up. Done
"alien rebels forces" currently links to Colonist (The X-Files). Perhaps only "alien rebels" will suffice. Done
The Plot summary seems to be too long. Try to take out the excess details and provide the information needed only to understand the essence of the episode. Done --Edge3 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all of the "small" tags that surround the refs. They're completely unnecessary in my opinion. Done --Edge3 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done "The episode debuted in the United States and Canada on Sunday, February 7, 1999, at the Fox Network. "Two Fathers" made its first appearance on Canadian television the same time and day on the Global Television Network.[7]" - This info seems inappropriate for a "Reception" section. I would move it to the Production section. --Edge3 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done "On May 16, 1999, the episode debuted in the United Kingdom and Ireland on Sunday." - Same as above. Also, you don't have to mention that the day was Sunday. --Edge3 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Release information is inappropriate for a "production" section, as seeing it has nothing to do with production. So instead i renamed the section, "Release and reception". Is that okay? --TIAYN (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Yes, that's fine. But is the day of the week really relevant?--Edge3 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done "This episode and its follow up, "One Son" earned the show's crew the Emmy for "Outstanding Makeup for a Series". The make-up crew was nominated for an Emmy award in the category "Outstanding Makeup for a Series" and won." The two sentences are redundant. Remove the second one. --Edge3 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Carter said it would give many long-waited answers but create new ones" and "She further stated that the episode gave some long-waited answers, but created new ones such as what really happened to Samantha Mulder." - Also redundancies. They should be combined. --Edge3 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done"...is the first of a two-part episode..." - Mentioned twice in the lead. --Edge3 (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mention who Dr. Openshaw actually is.

I'll see what i can do, but this is his first and last appearance, and he has never been mentioned again. But i'll try. --TIAYN (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Edge3 (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source doesn't seem to comply with WP:RS. --Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book to reference it. But to make it clear. It has the same ratings, viewership and shares as the books. It has the information as all the reliable sources i've compared them to. But i've removed it now, since the book already references it. --TIAYN (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This source has reliability issues as well. --Edge3 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEOS is the most reliable source we have, when it comes to airdates. The information is not included by individual members, but the staff of the site. Their is no reason for it not to be reliable? --TIAYN (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Ref 8 has issues as well with RS and WP:OR. --Edge3 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The eight one is reliable, Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB). No doubt that it is reliable. --TIAYN (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI apologize for not being clear enough. Where in the source does it say that Veronica Cartwright won? Where does it even mention the Outstanding Makeup for a Series award? Do I actually have to fill in the search boxes at the website?--Edge3 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that you get more professional sources, but I'm willing to accept the current sources if you can establish reliability. --Edge3 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'm now passing it as GA. --Edge3 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D --TIAYN (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]