Talk:The X-Files season 2

Untitled

This season isn't good.

All's well that ends well. Acegikmo1 22:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"This season isn't good"...citation needed. :P Season 1 X-Files episodes have their own pages; why hasn't that been done here? Wpell (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because someone hasn't created reasonable articles for them. Some had articles, but all they really were was a repeat of the two sentence plot from the list page. I'll put together articles for them eventually, focusing on cleaning up season 1 first. Quiddity99 (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The X-Files (season 2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

• Lede: Link Nielsen rating
• Production: Link executive producer
• Production: Unlink executive producer below per the above
• Cast: If there is a way you could a references to the "Cast" section. That'd be great.
• Special features: Per MOS:FLAG, I don't think there should be a flag there

That's all. Good luck with your The X-Files (season 2) good topic! On hold. TBrandley 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

comment

I think the article needs copy editing, as the prose is not clear and concise. Just as an example: in the lead's second paragraph consisting of three sentences, the word "season" is used five times. That's not "good" writing. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I added a tag for the word "apparently"; I don't this is encyclopedic wording. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for noting! TBrandley 15:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

These are examples only that I picked out in a minute. The whole article needs to be checked if the GA symbol means anything when it's awarded to an article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look over the article and try to fix some prose issues. I addressed all the other issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, parts of the article, including lede and plot have been ce'd. I feel much more confident about the prose of the article now. In addition, minor tweaks have been made to the citations and I believe everything, now is up to shape.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The following sentence, from the lead, could do with rewording: "the show's second season received positive reviews from most television critics" Would suggest changing "most" to "many" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• If there are any more issues with the prose, please list them out. I generally prefer line-by-line of what's wrong than just a "prose is bad", as the former is much easier to root out and fix. :)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Soooo... What's the status of this article?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, Gen. Quon, I have found a few more issues for "References":

• Various references use FOX, when it should be Fox, per WP:TRADEMARK. I'd be happy to pass the article after that.
• FOX Home Entertainment → 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, without capitals on Fox
• Overlinking for Fox Home Entertainment
• Ref. 30 uses Spotnitz, Frank, and Ref. 31 uses Frank Spotnitz. Only use one method
• Ref. 39: IGN should be under the "work" parameter, as News Corporation should be publisher

I'd be happy to pass if those are fixed. Good work! TBrandley 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I'll fix those ASAP.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Boom. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Still more issues:

• Lede: Says "Nielsen household rating" on the page
• Lede: Link 1994–95 television year to 1994–95 United States network television schedule
• Lede: In addition, the show's second season received positive reviews from many television critics. → In addition, the show's second season has generally received positive reviews from television critics.
• Writing and development: Actually, per WP:OVERLINK, executive producer shouldn't be linked
• Crew: Chris Carter is already above so it so just be Carter
• Crew: Howard Gordon is already above so it should just be Gordon
• Ratings: On the page it says "Nielsen household rating", not "Nielsen rating" for "Little Green Men"
• Ratings: "Little Green Men" was, at the time, the highest-rated episode of The X-Files to air." citation needed?
• Various overlinking with the "3" episode

There is more issues. Hope this is an okay review per WT:GAN!! TBrandley 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for catching those.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think this needs to be rewritten: "The season premiere, "Little Green Men" was originally supposed to have been written by series creator Chris Carter. Carter's original plan for the episode would have seen Mulder travelling to Moscow, Russia. In fact, he wanted to film the episode there, but was not able to secure arrangements. Chris Carter could not complete his opening extravaganza in time, where the X-Files were originally re-opened. So instead he and co-executive producers Glen Morgan, James Wong and Howard Gordon wrote four episodes to replace the planned premiere—with the X-Files closed, which gave Carter time to write "Duane Barry", the start of the first two-parter where the X-Files are re-opened." That has been in the article for as long as I've seen it, and needs copyediting. Also, is the Russia thing even mentioned in the source? I remember I asked Grapple if that was in any source he had, and he said no. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix that. BTW, the source is from this source, which was posted on a Morgan and Wong fan page back in the day. It was published in a magazine, with the title "Starlog Presents Eerie T.V.’".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, still, more issues:

• Unlink television series as it is a common term per WP:OVERLINK
• 1994–95 should be linked for "television year" also
• Ref. 1: Fox should be linked (only on Ref. 1)
• Ref. 26, 28, 30, 31: Unlink as it is linked above
• Various ref.: Writer or Director doesn't need to be capitalized

TBrandley 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I fixed all of those. I'm hoping that's it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)