Talk:3 (The X-Files)

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Haha, I suspect that the link to the page on David Livingstone may direct you to the wrong person. Wheatleya (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:3 (The X-Files)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review this over the next day or so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Fine
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See further comments below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

Overall

• If you are going to make comments on things that happen during the plot in later sections, at least have them in the plot section as well. I.e. Kristen shaving Mulder.

• Plot section does not need to be referenced. Also, it is overly long for an article of this length (nearly half the article).

1A

Lead

• Too many simple sentences; "it was... it was..." etc.
• "negative reviews from both critics and the show's crew" --> "reviews from both critics and the show's cast and crew" (Duchovy didn't like it either, right?)

Plot

• Who is John? He "comes back" from where? Is he the true Son?
  • Rewrote.

• Now what happened to Frank? Was Frank a name John was using? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently, yes. (the blood bank receptionist calls him "Frank", but Kristen says his name was "John" before becoming The Son, which is the preferred name to prevent confusion)

• Make sure points which you discuss later on are mentioned in the plot.

Broadcast and reception

• The quote from Nutter is overly long. It should be paraphrased and worked into another paragraph for now.
  • Relocated.

2B

• What makes Critical Myth a
  reliable source
  ?
  • He is a published critic, and regarding reviews are reviews, done by the editorial staff and don't violate the WP:RS parts that state "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users".

• This particular review seems to be self-published. Unless he were a big name, I wouldn't consider this to pass
  WP:SPS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Removed, even if the section is truly short now.

• We have a picture of Duchovny and whatnot that could be used to illustrate him further down the article.

• Hold for a week for more development of the production section and improving the prose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. The content is still fairly weak, although most of the other issues have been dealt with adequately Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Content is looking better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What does it still need? (just as a sidenote: it might have as much content as
  most articles here... without the extra review most have, or DVD content as the extras ignore the episode!) igordebraga ≠ 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, been quite busy these past few days (copyediting Google translations can make a person pull their hair out...). Looks good now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]