Talk:3 (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review
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)


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

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)
 * 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)
 * Removed, even if the section is truly short now.


 * After each sentence with a direct quote you should have a reference.
 * What is Starpulse, and why is it reliable?
 * Reference formatting needs to be standardized. You have linked and non-linked harv references; you should only have one style
 * Removed and fixed.


 * 3A
 * Assuming you have the Season 2 DVD, you should be able to get further information on the production from the commentary / making of feature. Also, what about major newspapers like the New York Times? Many of them have good archives that you can browse for reviews, or type a string like " site:nytimes.com 3 X-Files " into Google.
 * Added paragraph on filming to Production.


 * 6A
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Content is looking better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)