Talk:The X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review
Good articleThe X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil is the main article in the Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 2 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a gulag used to mine black oil in The X-Files was inspired by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?
Current status: Good article


GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead

Can you mention what episodes it includes or at least including 15 episodes, xxx of series 3 and xxx of series 5?

Added it to the lead, if you'd prefer it elsewhere I can move it. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Background

What is your source for the episode listings and dates?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've added the use of the DVD liner notes, which list production codes and air dates, to the episode table. Since it's the same citation for both I've only appended it to the production code so it reads as being for the whole line; should it be added separately to both fields? GRAPPLE X 14:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply