Talk:Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 08:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

You know, I love Bruce Campbell, but this episode never did it for me. I think once the series started using LA actors, who were much more recognisable, it became that little bit less believable and immersive.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The caption for the lead image is way too long (five lines!). I don't think it needs to contain the specifics of the effects shot, so long as the image page itself specifies that it shows effects which are discussed specifically in the article.
   "about the fifth of sixth idea" -> I assume this is meant to be "fifth or sixth"? If it's "fifth of sixth" in the source, append it with {{sic}}.
   "Originally, the crew had planned on renting a real fetal skeleton". This is my favourite sentence ever.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Ref 4 seems like it could do with some work. Is this a special feature from the Season 6 DVD? If so, the |location= field should be filled in to identify this; if not, it should still be used to identify the source of the video. As is, it seems too vague to be verifiable. Ref 6 isn't needed, the article is about the episode and so doesn't need to reference the episode for information about itself. There's also a good few instances of the same reference cited several times consecutively, these could be folded in together to let the prose flow without interruption—three sentences all back by one reference only need to be cited at the end of the third, for example, not once at the end of each.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems okay. I'll add another review to the article to round out that section.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article seems to be neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable, history shows no controversy.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   File:Terms of endearment x files.jpg needs a specific rationale for the episode. Given that it highlights a special effect which is discussed in detail, this should be included on the rationale. File:Bruce Campbell .jpg is free, but is a bit blurry and artefact-y. Perhaps File:Bruce Campbell2.jpg or File:Bruce Campbell at FSC (2).jpg would be better, they're both of a similar proportion to the one currently used so they should fit right in grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few things to straighten out here. Shouldn't take too long. Well done on another solid article.

Thanks for reviewing. I think I've straightened out all the issues. I, too, love that fetal skeleton line. ;) --Gen. Quon (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)