Talk:Sanguinarium

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sanguinarium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got this. Ruby 2010/2013 00:42, 2 January 2013 (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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• "...key dates on the witchcraft calendar." -- link witchcraft calendar (like you did in plot section)
• You use "episode" a lot in the lead. I tried to trim some of it, but there are a few more you could tweak (to "Sanguinarium" or "it" for instance)
• "... such large amounts of fat from the patient that they die." Is the patient female or male? "They" seems odd.
• Who played Dr. Ilaqua?
• "Scully deduces that both Ilaqua and Loyd..." -> Lloyd
• ...Mulder uses the hospitals computer programs..." -/ hospital's computer program
• Doctor Richard Cox -> Dr. Richard Cox
• "spec scripts were a wide tradition..." -- I'm not sure "wide tradition" works here. You mean they were widely used?
• "Sanguinarium" was such a case, being written by sisters Vivian Mayhew and Valerie Mayhew, a duo writing their first experience with an one-hour network program, -- writing their first experience? Could use a rewrite
• "The sisters, which were asked staff writers Glen Morgan and James Wong for suggestions..." - You mean they asked Morgan and Wong for suggestions? The sentence is unclear. Also, split up the sentence (the quote can be split).
• That same quote is confusing. Who said it? It also has no end quotation mark, making it unclear where it stops.
  • Put the end quotation mark. But the ref doesn't state which of the two said it, only it came from Morgan and Wong.
• who suggested them to change the villain -> who suggested they change the villain
• The spec script written by the Mayhew sisters was chosen to become a full episode, however, "Sanguinarium" stands as the only episode of The X-Files written by the two -- "however" doesn't work in this context.
• Not sure if "incrusting" is the correct word to use. Use "placing" instead?
• Explain who Howard Gordon is (like you do with Carter)
• "...having the plastic surgery alley with five operating rooms..." -- Alley?
• The nurse from the episode, Nurse Rebecca Waite, -- I'd remove the second "Nurse" here
• "...but ended up as an unintended reference to Rebecca Nurse, an innocent woman prosecuted during the Salem witch trials." -- You mean the writers discovered the reference later? Or is this something a viewer of the series noticed? (I can't verify in the off-line source).
• "did an excellent job -- I assume the ending quotation mark goes after "job"?
• Why no wikilink for The A.V. Club?
• The second paragraph of the reception could use a copy edit - you should go through it carefully and make sure everything makes sense. I see a lot of uses of "episode", run-on sentences, and clunky wording
• Why is the section's third paragraph so short? You should move some reviews around so the paragraphs look more even
• ""combines plastic surgery and black magic Into an unsatisfying mix that falls to lampoon our obsession with beauty."" - did he mean "fails"?
• Screenshot and free image look good. No EL or dab link issues

The article mainly has prose issues; otherwise the content is solid. I'll place this review on hold for seven days while my comments get addressed. Please respond here when you have finished, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Me and Gen. Quon did what we could, is it good enough now? igordebraga ≠ 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I crossed off most comments, with one more to go. I also copy edited the article -- make sure I didn't change the meaning of any sentences. Ruby 2010/2013 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article now looks ready for GA status. Happy to pass this one. Good work you two! Ruby 2010/2013 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanguinarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511082009/http://www.munchkyn.com/xf-rvws/sanguinarium.html to http://www.munchkyn.com/xf-rvws/sanguinarium.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)