Talk:Without (The X-Files)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one soon. Ruby 2010/2013 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Prelim comments

Should add {{subscription needed}} tag for this ref
I'm not way happy with the refs for this article; what makes Space.com a reliable source? This?
You and Grapple usually are very adept at finding written sources for X-Files articles. Any books out there on this one? Ruby 2010/2013 05:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just chiming in about the print sources here—short of dropping £125 on the Hurwitz and Knowles all-series guide, the books stopped at season 7 (this being a season 8 episode). Didn't actually realise that until your comment had me check it out, but it's not a good sign. :( GRAPPLE X 05:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, same here. I don't have access to that guide either and it's out of my price range. Other than that, however, I managed to fixed all the prelim issues. I'd like to comment that Space.com is a reliable source. It's articles are often reprinted in other magazine and they have a panel of editors. See their About Us and their Official Sources/Contributors. I removed GEOS, however, as it is a fansite. Sorry about that. I believe all the other sources stand up to scrutiny reasonably well.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

You should say which episode and which season in the lead (consistency with other television articles)
Indicate which day it aired in the UK in the lead
Lead: indicate "the previous episode" = "Within" (not clear in its current state; this might be better clarified once you put episode X and season X)
agent Mulder -> Agent Mulder
"...learn that John Doggett, the leader of the team" -> Doggett
"...received little attention in the United Kingdom and Ireland." Might need to alter this a bit; maybe, "it failed to rank in the top ten for that week" or something similar
Plot, plot overview, plot summary (I've seen different headings for different X-Files episodes; might want to make all of these consistent)
Plot: add actor for Gibson Praise
I can't really follow the plot summary, as the events are closely related with the previous episode (which I haven't seen). You might want to add a little more info for reader clarity (there's no danger of going over the plot word count, for now)
Should add more production info to lead
"Supervising Producer Paul Rabwin recounts" -> supervising producer Paul Rabwin recounts
Use consistent date formatting (4 December 2011 vs December 4, 2011)
You repeat ratings info (9% of estimated households vs 9.072 million households)
"On November 12, 2000 the episode premiered on American and Canadian television on Fox and Global Television Network in Canada, with both stations airing the episode at the same time." Sentence has some redundancy and could do with being rewritten (also no need to repeat Canada twice)
No need for wikilink of UK and Ireland (both common words)
Any other ratings data out there on UK ratings?
"He called the episode "fun [and] much better than last year's trilogy, considering." Considering what? Is there more to the quote?
Italicize and wikilink Contra Costa Times
"towards the shows strengths" -> show's
I'm not sure how justified the screenshot is, considering there's no critical commentary on it and there's already a great concept image

I'll place the article on hold for seven days while the above get addressed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 07:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've fixed up everything and made corrections, per your review. Tell me if there is anything else I need to do!--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good. One more thing: Is the episode called "Without" or "Without (Part 3)"? Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it's part three of three parts. I clarified it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for GA. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]