Talk:Unrequited (The X-Files)

Unrequited (The X-Files) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Unrequited (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
July 14, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This article has been promoted to good article status. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unrequited (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be performing a review later today. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"aired" perhaps "originally aired"?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon linking "Monster-of-the-Week", please do not include the quotation marks
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the lead's first paragraph usage of "episode" at the near beginning of their first sentences, and perhaps replace some with different words
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the mysterious murder of a U.S. Army Lieutenant General has Mulder and Scully racing against the clock to stop a seemingly unstoppable and invisible assassin" how can you assure that all of that sentence represents a neutral point of view, and not personal analysis.
I believe I rewrote this adequately.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"American POW's still being kept in Vietnam" that provides a link to Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, but it is not publicly visible generally, so per WP:EASTEREGG, I would suggest stating the Vietnam War in the article's context, place the link there, hence why you should then removing the Easter egg link
I tried to move it down. The wording is still different, but I feel it is now in a more appropriate place.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same seems to go for "mark their kills"
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"warehouse, duly" unnecessary comma?
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the production section, link "Jericho Park" per WP:UNDERLINK
Unfortunately, the page does not exist.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you dig up some information about the British broadcast in the reception section, which would be beneficent to the article
I found the airdate, but that's really all. It's better than nothing, I guess.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wanting to Believe: A Critical Guide to The X-Files, Millennium & The Lone Gunmen" bibliographical works should be in italics per WP:ITALICS
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 03:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.