Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Squeeze (The X-Files)/archive1

< 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 23:34, 21 June 2012 [1].

Squeeze (The X-Files)

edit

Squeeze (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally considered the watershed moment in The X-Files, when the series moved from being The Invaders in the 90s to develop its own unique identity, "Squeeze" is probably the best way to introduce yourself to the show—and the best start to WP:TXF's long term goal of bringing you many more articles from the project's scope. "Squeeze" has undergone a Good Article review in July/August last year, a Peer Review in September, and a GOCE copy-edit just this month. I'm satisfied that comprehensiveness has been demonstrated as a range of production, thematic and reception sources have all been collated; further reviews for the episode do exist but are essentially redundant to those already used and would simply add to the largely-positive reception which has, in the PR, been seen as something to perhaps avoid. If anyone performing spot-checks on sources would like copies of the print sources used I'll be happy to email over some scans. Image use is admittedly spartan but I've simply not seen any free files which would seem relevant (File:Doug Hutchison.jpg does exist but frankly at that size it's next to impossible to fit any real caption under it). Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a looking over. GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Any reason why the en dash is used in one quote box description and em dash in the other?
  • Independent ref was published in 1994, not 1993
  • Published date for the Vancouver Sun article was July 25, 2008, not September 12, 2009.
  • Why is Fox Broadcasting Company stylized as 'FOX' in Ref 23, yet 'Fox' in Ref 14? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for spotting those, I've sorted them out now. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ref 14, I assume it should be 1993–94 going by WP:YEAR? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean ref 19? It's the one with the year range present, though I could add years to ref 14 and the other video cites, based on the DVD's release if you think that would be of benefit. I've fixed the range in ref 19 to read 1993–94 instead of 1993–1994 though. GRAPPLE X 14:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My mistake, was Ref 19 indeed. Nice work and would serve as a great introduction to readers who have not seen the series. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Supported below Ok, started a read through. Hopefully I don't take too long.
  • "the overarching mythology, or fictional history, of the series." Might want to shorten this link a bit.
  • "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast; and has received positive reviews from critics, mostly focusing on Hutchison's guest performance and the resonance of his character." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first point, I've just shortened that to "mythology" as that's the term used most often by sources (primary and secondary). Previous reviews of other articles had suggested to clarify that term though, so if you think something else would be better then I'm open to suggestion. For the second, I've broken the sentence at the semi colon. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I tweaked it a little, hope this works.
  • "The investigation into Usher's murder—the latest of three—is assigned" The latest of three investigations? Or murders?
  • "At the crime scene, Mulder finds an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "finds" here?
  • "Briggs shows them some old photographs of Tooms—showing Tooms has not aged—and gives" ditto for "shows... showing"
  • "takes Scully's necklace from around her neck" Is there a good way to avoid the "necklace from around her neck" repetition here here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of how I've addressed these, let me know if you think these need further tweaking. GRAPPLE X 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, the producers initially considered him too young for the role;" I'm not sure "Although" works well here.
    Have removed "although" and instead used a "however" between "Tooms" and "the producers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fter tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter came up with the idea to have the villain consume human livers.[5][6] The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation." Maybe try for a little more variation, "came" and "the idea" are used in each sentence.
    Have changed the first sentence to "After tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter suggested that the villain should consume human livers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Duchovny was asked to play his role as being more emotionally involved in the case, although Duchovny decided that his character should seem more detached." Repetition of "Duchovny" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the second instance to "the actor". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issue that I can see in "Filming" is that the sentence in the second paragraph follow a similar structure, using ", and" to break the sentence in two. It's a minor issue, but maybe try for some variation.
  • Might want to break "Post-production" into two paragraphs.
  • "Themes" looks good, I trimmed a little out though--I think people realize when and where the September 11 attacks were. No problem if you want to reinsert though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a few changes based on your comments, let me know if you think they work. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, just a couple small comments on the last section:
  • I'm not sure you need the ellipsis at the end of the quote here: ""remains one of the scariest things ever seen on television ... "" ditto for a couple quotes later on.
  • " Christine Seghers listed Hutchison as the fourth-best guest star of the series in a top ten countdown" Should "top ten countdown" be hyphenated?
  • "and called it "simply brilliant!".[33]" Is the double punctuation needed here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed these earlier. Have removed the ellipses; they were added in a copyedit and I wasn't sure whether to keep them or not. Have also removed the exclamation mark after "brilliant" as I prefer to keep terminal punctuation after a quote. As for hyphenation, would you prefer "top-ten countdown" or how would you put it? GRAPPLE X 01:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I probably would put "top-ten countdown", hope that's right.
    I've hyphenated "top ten" as "top-ten". GRAPPLE X 02:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending spotchecks etc. I think this is the first time I've reviewed an FAC about a tv show episode, though I've read quite a few of them. This looks to me like an example of our best work for television coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Comments from Crisco 1492
Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Comments –

  • Plot: "At the crime scene, Mulder notices an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Not sure where "are" is coming from, since the fingerprint is a singular items.
  • Pre-production: Is it "Monster-of-the-Week" or "monster-of-the-week"? This section and the lead differ in the capitalization.
  • In the first side quote, Duchovny's name is misspelled as "Duchonvy".
  • Background and production: "Glen Morgan was very pleased with Hutchison's performance in this episode, calling him their 'ace in the hole'...". Who's "their"? The producers?
  • There's an issue with the formatting of a reference to Shearman and Pearson in the third paragraph of this section.
  • Missing word, "of", in "listed Tooms as one his favorite monsters".
  • I think the sentence starting with "Writing for Den of Geek" is a run-on in terms of its length; it goes on and on and on. I'd split the Matt Haigh quote into its own sentence.
  • Reference 7 is to a Wordpress page, which is not usually considered a reliable source. I'd have concerns about whether the site has the right to republish this magazine article. Perhaps an offline reference to the publication would avoid the issue of using a questionable website. Also, the magazine's title should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for having a look at this. Have addressed these points; I had kept the link to a copy of the magazine article for the purposes of verification but have removed it since you mention the issue of copyright, which hadn't occurred to me. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
  • A little context on the episode's ratings might be helpful due to the way you phrase this: "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2 and was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast". It implies that regardless of difficulties, the episode was watched by a lot of viewers. I think readers might like to know how it compared with other television shows for that week (to help gauge what a large audience looks like).
  • Eugene Victor Tooms has red link in plot section
  • "The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation" - your repeated use of "hibernation" looks a little sloppy
  • "Actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, however the producers initially considered him too young for the role" - however -> but
  • No need to link United Kingdom (common word)
  • Make sure to italicize any mentions of The X-Files in the reception section
  • The 3rd paragraph of the reception section can probably be turned into two.

I'll return to give it another look-over. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was unable to find any context for viewing figures beyond the raw numbers so I tweaked that section to place an emphasis on its critical reception rather than its viewership. I've corrected everything else mentioned; including italicising a mention of "The X-Files" not italicised in the source, if that kind of correction is too much I can reverse it. GRAPPLE X 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The third para of lead could use some links: post-production, Nielsen ratings.
  • The lead doesn't capture at all the importance of this episode, something you've managed to do quite succinctly in the first sentence of this FAC. :) Maybe you should move the "monster of the week" sentence to the third para, and add a quote from somebody (Carter?) about the significance of this.
  • Add free pics to the article to break up the text?
  • "Tooms" seems to be excessively used in the last two paragraphs of the Plot. Cut down to increase readability?—indopug (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have wikilinked post-production, and replaced the ratings information in the lead with some quotes about the episode's legacy to help emphasise that. I managed to copy-edit a few Toomses out of the plot section too; and created User:Grapple X/Squeeze pics to test out a few possible pictures. I could also feasibly add any of the free images from Jack the Ripper based on Morgan and Wong's admission that he was an inspiration for the episode; the "From Hell" letter seems most appropriate as it was sent along with a human kidney. Let me know what you think works. GRAPPLE X 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Maybe you could add a picture of Foie gras to break up the text, since free images of other aspects of the page aren't available.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the second paragraph of the lead, maybe it would be worth it to explain that Mulder is a believer and Scully is a skeptic intended to debunk his work, especially since that plays a role in the episode. Also, I don't see that the themes section is represented in the lead. Glimmer721 talk 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All the issues have been cleaned up nicely and the free pics are great.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ditto. There is really nothing more to add. Would make a good TFA candidate for its 20th anniversary.Glimmer721 talk 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Grapple, I'm guessing you haven't had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing at FAC yet -- if that's the case we'd better organise one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not had a thorough spotcheck before but Graham Colm performed a Copyscape search for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive3. If anyone wishing to perform a spotcheck on some of those print sources used I should be able to provide scans but it might not be very prompt as I'm currently working from limited computer access. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to help with this as I have all of the books, sans the The X-Files Declassified.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

I did a copy-edit of the post-Plot sections of the article, mainly to prune out extraneous and redundant wording. I found some more issues:

  • Lead
  • Direct quotes always need to attributed to sources.
  • "the series' quest for political, rather than epistemological, truths": too vague without elaboration. Replace with the "balancing act of truth vs convictions" thing (from Themes)?
    Removed one quote, attributed the other; have rephrased the final sentence to use the focus you suggest. GRAPPLE X 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot
  • Don't have time now to copy-edit this, but I think it can be trimmed a little by removing some excessive detail and redundant wording.
  • "takes the necklace Scully is wearing" - how, after a confrontation or sneakily without Scully noticing?
    I've clarified this latter point by adding "stealthily" to the sentence to explain that it's done without her noticing; I'll try to trim the section down some more soon. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have trimmed the plot down some more but I'm not sure what else to take out from here. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production
  • Maybe succinctly describe foie gras in the caption? Any idea why it inspired Carter? Just the appearance or anything more?
    Have added a brief description to the caption ("the liver of a fattened goose"), but as for reasoning I believe it's just a case of eating liver and then imagining it was human liver instead. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think two big blue quote-boxes in quick succession is overkill. Remove the Duchovny one, and add the relevant bit to pad the Pre-production sentence about playing his role detached?
    Have added it to "Filming" as it made sense to follow it on from the other information about Longstreet and the disagreements others had with his approach. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is "Beck"?
    Could have sworn this was in there at some point before, but I added it in now; he's Mat Beck, visual effects supervisor for the series. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes: I think this needs the most work. There are too many quotes. They disrupt the flow and often aren't easy to understand. Also the sentences appear very long-winded and should be broken up.
  • "Air Force" quote is completely unclear to me.
  • The last sentence is also extremely confusing, and that it features three quotes doesn't help.
  • Break into two paragraphs?
    Clarified things, rewrote things to convey the meaning of the quoted material rather than simply quoting it, and split into two paragraphs. GRAPPLE X 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
  • Could possibly lose a paragraph-worth of info as so much is repetitive. Tooms was scary, creep and skin-crawling; the episode was first stand-alone one. This is repeated too many times IMO.
  • For the above, consider cutting out less-known publications, like The Star, which already features in the lead.
  • The Neil Gaiman photographs puts undo emphasis on the fact that it was just "one of his favorite monsters". I know I had asked for more pictures; but aren't there more suitable free ones—of Mulder, Scully, Tooms or any of the producers or creators?
    There's a terribly small picture of Hutchison that would be difficult to use well; aside from that I'll see what could be relevantly slotted in from amongst the pictures available of Anderson and Duchovny perhaps. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Killed two birds with one stone and cut this section down by removing the Den of Geek material whose notability had been questioned. I've replaced the Gaiman picture with a multiple image of Hutchison and Anthony Hopkins, alluding to Hutchison's inspiration while mentioning his reception; the new pictures don't look as good but are much more relevant to the article I guess. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree with anything I've suggested or edited. I will be watching "Squeeze" over the next few days and will pipe in again.—indopug (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything you've raised here, though you might want to look at the plot section again in case your uninvested eyes see something as extraneous that I haven't. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments

I finally saw the episode, and think that the article is pretty much good to go. Just have a few stylistic/preferential suggestions:

  • I meant that, even in the lead, quoted material needs to have citations.[1] Also, on second thought, it appears a bit weird that you quote a Malaysian source right away in the lead.
    Added a citation; the quote was used because it seemed the best context-free summation of the episode's reception, didn't matter to me what its origin was. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: can the two "list of episodes" article links be removed to cut down on the infobox's length? The season 1 article can be piped above at Season 1 Episode 3, and IMO the overall episodes list is unnecessary.
    Removed the whole "episode list" parameter and piped a link to season 1 in the earlier "season" field.
  • Plot: a few technicalities,
  • "she and Mulder wait" - doesn't only she wait while Mulder just comes to visit her (because he believes the whole exercise is futile)?
    Scully does go there before Mulder, but I wasn't sure whether it was worth the extra wordage to explain this given how minor it seems. I could add it in if you feel it's important enough though. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mulder questions him" - wasn't him that did the questioning. You might want to clarify the whole part of the polygraph a bit more I think. How Tooms aced the test, how the others decided Mulder was mental...
    Clarified things there a little more. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fingerprints - clarify as "by digitally elongating and narrowing Tooms' fingerprints, Mulder finds that they match the prints at the crime scene"?
    Added. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a better term for Scully's chain than necklace, which brings to mind a larger, more-gaudy image?
    Added a link to cross necklace, one of the prominent images there is a more elegant type of necklace similar to Scully's gold cross. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mulder and Scully stake out the apartment - don't they assign that for somebody to do?
    Changed to mention that they have it put under surveillance to remove the inference that they do it personally themselves. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scully tries to call Mulder - actually she does reach his voicemail. When he finds the locket and tries to call her, it's been cut... (I suggest to re-watch these bits if possible)
    Reworded the first few sentences here to reflect this. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can colleagues represent models of reality? Do you mean that they believe in an inst. model of reality?
    Clarified that it's their mindset which follows this model; could change to "beliefs" or "attitudes" instead if preferred. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prior to the September 11 attacks" indicates to me that there will be some comparison with the post-9/11 FBI. But there isn't, so maybe you should consider "during the nineties" or "upto/until/at the time of the show"? Also clarify "previously seen itself"; previous to what?
    "Previously" had been pre-September 11 attacks, but I've removed that for "during the series' tenure" instead. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence confusion: do the public believe that the FBI is the investigator of the truth, or that the courtroom is?—indopug (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to clarify this a little but I wasn't sure where the sentence was vague (too close to it, I guess). It's that the public perceive the FBI as investigators of truth, and the courtroom as a place where this truth is revealed as a result. If the sentence as is doesn't reflect that, I could change it if you have a suggested wording to reflect the intention. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on this one. This is a diff of the changes based on your last set of comments if you want to review them more easily. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yay, nitpicks all done. Great work on this, and other Season 1 articles as well. I hope one day soon (while you still have the enthusiasm :P) you tackle the big daddy article itself. :)—indopug (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TBrandley 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did a factcheck using the books I have. I only made a few minor changes here. I don't have access to X-Files Confidential or The X-Files Declassified, so someone else might need to do that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Quon, a spotcheck by nature doesn't require that all refs be checked, just a sampling, and reviewing your changes does not ring alarms bells regarding the overall quality of the sourcing -- tks for that.
  • I notice we've finished with more images in the article than we started with but all licensing looks acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Squeeze_(The_X-Files)/archive1&oldid=1138472014"