Talk:Via Negativa (The X-Files)

GA Review

I have done a GA review of this article here, and the article is currently on hold for a week to allow the concerns to be addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is in the main, good, if a little short. The main issue is the lack of reliable sources.

1. Well-written:
   • No issues noted.
     • I would disagree. The production section is in high need of a copy-edit. Here is just one example:

"This so-called image got Spotnitz thinking, he thought "How could you create a story where blood comes out of a tube of toothpaste?" There were no real-world scenario having any likeness to it, so he started to think of "dreams and nightmares."" The plot section also needs some tweaking. Ωphois 10:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Same with reception. Prose is repetitive, and the review section jumps back and forth multiple times between fan reaction and critical reaction. Ωphois 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Factually accurate and verifiable:
   • What makes references #3, #4 and #5 reliable?
   • The entire plot summary section is unsourced. There surely should be some sort of official episode guide that covers this.
2. Broad in its coverage:
   • Quite well written for a TV episode article - the level of detail is about right, although more information about the production, shooting, etc etc would be welcome.
3. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
   • No issues noted.
4. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
   • No issues noted.
5. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
   • Only one image used, which is non-free, but it's appropriately tagged as such and given the subject matter, there is not much chance of alternative free images being located.

If the sourcing issues can be resolved, this should more or less meet the standard. I suggest reviewing other TV episodes that have already made the grade (such as Lisa the Skeptic) for an indication of how TV episode articles can meet the GA/FA criteria with regards to sourcing. I am placing this article on hold for one week to allow these concerns to be addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

I am closing this review as Unsuccessful, given that there has been no significant improvement to this article since the above review. Please feel free to use the above suggestions to improve the article and apply again in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Via Negativa (The X-Files)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eshlare (talk · contribs) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. Eshlare (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The screenshot is up for deletion. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

: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):

Prose is generally acceptable although there are a few errors; in-universe information is presented correctly.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

The article attributes cited facts to reliable sources.

It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

The article covers major information on production and reception as far as it is available.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

Neutral POV is maintained in the tone, and critical sources with both positive and negative opinions are accurately represented.

It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

Completely stable.

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):

Infobox image has been withdrawn by the nominator at File for Deletion and has sufficient fair-use rationale to justify its use in the article.

Further comments

Lead

• The information on reception (viewing figures and critical response) should be moved to the end of the lead which should be presented as a sequential overview.
• This sentence needs expanding or the "and" taken out - "The episode and was generally well-received by critics". Also include an element of the most commented upon aspect of the episode alongside the "generally well received" comment.
• "The show centres on FBI special agents John Doggett (Robert Patrick) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson)" This is awkward as it suggests that the entirety of The X-Files centres on Dogget and Scully. Maybe mention The X-Files' general premise and mention briefly there being a new team for the eighth series? Or specify that the eighth series focusses on Dogget and Scully.
• I'd add another line of plot detail so it's less of a tag-line.
• "Because Gillian Anderson would not be" -> "Because Gillian Anderson was not"
• "the characters of Walter Skinner and The Lone Gunmen were brought in" specify that these are recurring characters within the series.
• "meaning "Negative Way" in Latin" -> "which means "Negative Way" in Latin."

Plot

• "The FBI later finds him". Finds who, Steadman or Tipet?
• "From no apparent reason" -> "For no apparent reason"
• There is inconsistency in which characters have their actors linked to in parenthesis.
• I'm also concerned that the article paraphrases this source too closely and breaches Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Close Paraphrasing which are quick fail issues. The first and last paragraphs seem to be lifted almost directly from the article whilst other sections seem to also have sentences directly lifted. I've assumed good faith on part of the nominating editor and I am willing to hold the article whilst this is addressed.

Production

• "to think of any real-world scenarios having any likeness" -> "To think of any real-world scenario having likeness" - repetition of any.

Reception

• Move the comment from Patrick to the information on Doggett in the production section. As he is involved in the product he isn't qualified to review it and his comments are more an insight into Dogget's characterisation.
• Specify in what way the episode was compared to the works of David Lynch and make it clear who made the comparison.
• Another source could be added if this is at all possible. The reception section seemed slightly shorter that other The X-Files Good Articles I've looked at. I understand if this isn't possible.

Pass/Fail:

I've put the article on hold for seven days. Aside from the issues of the plot section the article is of sound quality. Eshlare (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Before I beefed this article up, plot section was already there, so I promise it wasn't me. I tried to re-write the sections. Tell me how they sound now. I believe everything else is better, as well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I guessed :) The lead and the plot section look much better. Since it's with close reference to the episode there's bound to be an overlap. There's only so many ways some things can be stated. I made some aesthetic changes to the production section (small paragraphs are better avoided). Aside from that, it's good to go I think.

Pass Eshlare (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)