Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All things/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:57, 20 September 2014 diff.

all things

edit
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated several months ago, but after only one vote of support, it died, so I'm renominating it. This article is the seventeenth episode of seventh season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It is notably because it was written and directed by series co-star Gillian Anderson, but was also critically mauled. It was first promoted to good article status in April of 2012, and was later promoted to A-class status in September of the same year. The article has also changed substantially since it was promoted to good article in April of 2012. In addition, it has undergone two copy-edits: one by User:TBrandley in September of 2012, and another by User:JudyCS in January of 2014. I've also copy-edited while I've gone along, and the article was also unofficially peer-reviewed by User:Sarastro1. After a long trek up (about three years!), I think it is finally ready for FA review, but, as always, I am open to comments, criticism, and suggestion!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a quick drive-by comment, but I think you should include a note at the very beginning of the article clarifying that the title is "all things" and not "All Things". The first thing I thought I saw the title was that some mischievous IP address had gone and vandalized the article, and I almost changed it to the "correct" version. If you can find an explanation for why the title is lowercase, all the better, but certainly clarify what the correct episode title is. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I have implemented an explanatory note at the very beginning. I couldn't find a reason why the episode is lowercase (other than the words are taken from the middle of a soliloquy given by Scully in the episode, but that's OR), but I put some references that explain that it is the official way the title appears.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the previous nomination. Images are okay too - One FU image with adequate rationale, which is discussed in the article. Two free images, both from Flickr, both relevant to the text. I'd move Anderson's to the left side of the screen to face inward, but that's just me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments and support on prose from Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Taking a look now - 'nuff said. WIll drop queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is ill and suffering from a as-of-yet undiagnosed heart issue - any reason why we're not saying "heart condition"? "issue" sounds sorta weird/unnatural to my ears....
There are alotta "Scully"s in para 3 of plot section - even removing or replacing one with "the agent" or something would make it flow better.
link 'existentially'

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. I cut the down the "Scullys" a bit, added 'condition' instead of 'issue', and linked existentially. How's it look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fine...support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments and support on prose from Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Resolved comments and support from Seattle (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:Comments:

Support. Have no qualms; met FA requirements after I reviewed. Seattle (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tezero

edit

Back-to-back inactivity-failing sucks horribly, so I'll be covering this. Tezero (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a direct opposition, but why is an astronomy website used as a review source? Is this typical for X-Files episodes?
    I've used it for several other episodes. Would you suggest removing it?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Other FA episodes? (Me supporting its inclusion isn't necessarily contingent on this precedent; I'm just wondering.) Tezero (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the site in both X-Cops and The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about citing an Amazon.com listing, and if so, you should mention that it is in the citation. Or are you citing the DVD itself? If so, specify that it's the back cover, the liner notes, the on-DVD episode listing, etc. (You could actually just change this to another reference to the liner notes [citation #1], assuming the episode list appears there.)
    I just removed the Amazon.com link and mentioned that it is citing the liner notes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would seriously suggest archiving the iTunes link using WebCite, as iTunes URLs are notorious for their short lifespan as a result of recurrent reorganization.
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For #24: what the nuts does "passim" mean?
    According to Wiktionary, it is "used especially with the name of a book or writer to indicate that something (as a word, phrase, or idea) is to be found at many places in the same book or writer's work". Since the entire book is discussing feminist philosophy and feminist epistemology, this is a way to cite something over a large scope.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Note: Information is in the section titled "w/e July 3–9, 2000", listed under Sky1" - might want to put a period at the end and quotes around "Sky1"
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks:
  • 38: not seeing "interesting" directed at this episode
  • "Season seven produced some memorable episodes, with Duchovny and Anderson both writing and directing interesting episodes this season." This was the only episode written/directed by Anderson, so it must be the one being referred to.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2: iTunes says the length is 44:40; are two significant figures the standard or something?
  • 14: good, though The AV Club is an odd source for an interview. Would suggest italicizing "essence" in blockquote.
  • 31: good, though even with the directions it was a little difficult to find the pertinent information. I wonder if WebCite would be able to take you straight there...
  • I mean that I was able to find the information in the source, but only after puzzling over the directions for a bit. To prevent this if a reader decides to look at the source, you may want to use www.webcitation.org to archive the specific page with the appropriate categories already selected. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when done or addressed. Tezero (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- By all means pursue the last point but I think we can safely leave it to post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/All_things/archive2&oldid=1138454245"