Talk:Colony (The X-Files)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colony 2x16.jpg

Image:Colony 2x16.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Will review this one. Ruby 2010/2013 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Plot section is excessive, and should be trimmed down (a la Meet Kevin Johnson)
• Provide proper wikilink for pro-life priest
• No need for the refs in the plot section (it's assumed the episode itself is the reference)
• Who thought the lines were "very hard" and "specific"? The actress?
• No need for saying Canada, but you should keep the comma after Vancouver
• Italics issue with last sentence of writing section
• Need space before A.V. Club review
• Any more reviews out there?
• Reformat BBC air date

On hold for seven days while comments get addressed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Think I've got most of this - let me know if anything else could be trimmed out of the plot section. I'll see if I can find any more reviews but it's tricky finding them out there. Thanks for taking the time to review this for me. GRAPPLE X 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the changes look great. I'll give this a little more time for you to track down a review- have you tried any newspaper banks? Databases are usually available through colleges and libraries. I've found them very useful in the past, particularly for older dated episodes and films. Ruby 2010/2013 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a check over JSTOR or the like at the university library, been meaning to head back soon. Scoured online again there for what I could find and didn't manage anything. GRAPPLE X 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Again, I gave you seven days for the review, so take your time. Just respond here when/if you find something. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Took a different tack and tried scholarly reception instead, was able to double the length of the paragraph with some mentions in books. I'll be at the university library this Monday so I'll be able to check JSTOR then, but in the off-chance I don't get finding anything or can't update here in time (IP blocks are always a worry with non-private computers), I'm just dropping this note. GRAPPLE X 05:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your additions look good. I'm passing this for GA (another review wouldn't hurt though, if you're still planning on going to the library to beef up your other X-Files articles). Keep up the good work, Ruby 2010/2013 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, couldn't find anything on JSTOR, and still have no idea how to work LexisNexis. :( GRAPPLE X 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)