Talk:3 (The X-Files)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will review this over the next day or so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Checklist
edit| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | See below |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fine |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See below |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See below |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Fine |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fine |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Within definition |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | See further comments below |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
Comments
edit- Overall
- If you are going to make comments on things that happen during the plot in later sections, at least have them in the plot section as well. I.e. Kristen shaving Mulder.
- Plot section does not need to be referenced. Also, it is overly long for an article of this length (nearly half the article).
- 1A
- Lead
- Too many simple sentences; "it was... it was..." etc.
- "negative reviews from both critics and the show's crew" --> "reviews from both critics and the show's cast and crew" (Duchovy didn't like it either, right?)
- Plot
- Who is John? He "comes back" from where? Is he the true Son?
- Rewrote.
- Now what happened to Frank? Was Frank a name John was using? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, yes. (the blood bank receptionist calls him "Frank", but Kristen says his name was "John" before becoming The Son, which is the preferred name to prevent confusion)
- Make sure points which you discuss later on are mentioned in the plot.
- Broadcast and reception
- The quote from Nutter is overly long. It should be paraphrased and worked into another paragraph for now.
- Relocated.
- 2B
- What makes Critical Myth a reliable source?
- He is a published critic, and regarding reviews are reviews, done by the editorial staff and don't violate the WP:RS parts that state "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users".
- This particular review seems to be self-published. Unless he were a big name, I wouldn't consider this to pass WP:SPS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Removed, even if the section is truly short now.
- After each sentence with a direct quote you should have a reference.
- What is Starpulse, and why is it reliable?
- Reference formatting needs to be standardized. You have linked and non-linked harv references; you should only have one style
- Removed and fixed.
- 3A
- Assuming you have the Season 2 DVD, you should be able to get further information on the production from the commentary / making of feature. Also, what about major newspapers like the New York Times? Many of them have good archives that you can browse for reviews, or type a string like " site:nytimes.com 3 X-Files " into Google.
- Added paragraph on filming to Production.
- 6A
- We have a picture of Duchovny and whatnot that could be used to illustrate him further down the article.
- Hold for a week for more development of the production section and improving the prose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. The content is still fairly weak, although most of the other issues have been dealt with adequately Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Content is looking better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- What does it still need? (just as a sidenote: it might have as much content as most articles here... without the extra review most have, or DVD content as the extras ignore the episode!) igordebraga ≠ 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, been quite busy these past few days (copyediting Google translations can make a person pull their hair out...). Looks good now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)