Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice (The X-Files)/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2015 [1].

Ice (The X-Files)

edit
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the more well-known episodes of The X-Files, and one of my personal favourites. It's been to FAC before, where it was failed based on prose issues; since that time it's had another thorough copy-edit by User:Miniapolis, whose efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm also aware that I wasn't particularly active during the last FAC, which I assure you won't be an issue this time around. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to look at this one, and if you haven't seen the series at all before, I would say this is a good place to start. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see this has been through FAC once before and the writing quality has been improved upon, so good job to Grapple X and to copy editor Miniapolis for working on that. The article is of high quality from an important point in time within the series formative period. The writing quality is high level yet also succinct and concise throughout. I especially like the Conception and writing sect and how the subject is placed within a wider context of influence upon it from popular culture prior to its inception. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

edit
Perhaps worth looking into? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS list it without the definite article (here), even though they do have a list of variant names for it. GRAPPLE X 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we should follow that, also sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you've now added the "the" in, in light of this. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misraed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and another is recovered from one of the bodies." Which bodies?
    Those of the scientists already dead at the location, would "one of the scientists' bodies" work better? GRAPPLE X 12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. GRAPPLE X 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "250,000-year-old item encased in ice" What item?
  • Hawks is only mentioned in an image caption, not the article text.
    Oversight on my part. He's debated as being the real director but without wanting to get into that I've just noted his role as producer. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the sources in question don't specify this, or I'd have added it. I'm not even sure I could track down the original article as my assumption would be that presuming it to be the correct one would be OR. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would remain intact " What would remain intact?
    Yeah I think the copy-edit lost something here. This is a common enough practice with film/TV censors--you film a questionable scene with more footage than you intend, so that when a censor asks for X amount of material to be cut, you still end up with a scene using as much footage as you had actually wanted: you want a minute to survive so you film two minutes and cut one out. I'll try to reword it shortly. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this look? GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Barbara (WVS)

edit
  • Support FA status - I am considering nominating an article for FA status and this discussion has been a great example of congeniality, responsiveness and collaboration. It appears to me to meet WP:FA?. The tone is encyclopedic and yet engaging at the same time. I am not a fan of articles that describe television plot lines, but this article has changed my mind. Good fortune on the rest of the review. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was there, way back when, when this was first submitted. It has come a long way, and I see no reason to not promote it. The copy-edit looks good, all the sources check out (I know this from personal experience), and the page is organized nicely (with excellent photos).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

edit
Comments by West Virginian (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and overall
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the "Ice" episode, establishes the episode's necessary context, and explains why the episode is otherwise notable.
  • The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • It would suggest wiki-linking "parasitic" with Parasitism.
  • For the external links, I would suggest adding archive links, for those without, with Internet Archive or WebCite.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Pilot

  • I would suggest wiki-linking geophysicists to Geophysics and toxicologist to Toxicology.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Production

  • The image of Howard Hawks is released into the Public Domain and has both alt and standard image citations.
  • The image of John Carpenter is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and has both alt and standard image citations.
  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Analysis

  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Reception

  • The image of Gillian Anderson is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore suitable for inclusion. It also has standard and alt citations.
  • In the "Ratings" subsection, Fox can be de-linked as it is already linked above in the prose.
  • In the "Reviews" subsection, UGO Networks can also be de-linked as it is mentioned and linked earlier in the text.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.
I'll not be able to archive the URLs used until later this evening, in the office at the minute and unable to access them; but I have made the suggested links and unlinkings. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your timely response Grapple X! The archiving was merely a suggestion, but it will give you peace of mind in the future should those links change or vanish. Again, you've done an extraordinary job with this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit

Generally really good, but there are just a few prose points that I would like to see addressed.

  • "found a 250,000-year-old item encased in ice" - do we have any idea what this "item" was? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately not, it's not mentioned in the sources used. I have the feeling (OR, of course) that by the time this was mentioned in an interview, Morgan had probably forgotten the nature of the object and recalled only the fact that it was ancient and buried under ice. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Filming" section, we have the following two sentences, "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would last as long as intended if Fox's standards-and-practices officials asked for cuts, no edits were requested. "Ice" was the first significant role in the series for makeup effects artist Toby Lindala, who become its chief makeup artist", which are then followed by a citation. I take it that this citation covers the material in both sentences, but given that the second sentence does not directly follow on from the first, this is not completely clear. I would suggest replicating the citation at the end of the first sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my personal preference but I've doubled it up there. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

No spotchecks carried out.

  • Ref 23 requires a date
  • Ref 35: the publisher is given as "TV Squad". I think this should be Huffpost TV

Subject to these points, citations are properly formatted, and sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 23 now has publication dates updated; 35 carries "TV Squad" in the |work= field and Huffpost TV, piped to The Huffington Post, in the |publisher= field now. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 09:00, 28 October 2015 (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/Ice_(The_X-Files)/archive2&oldid=1138463699"