Talk:D.P.O. (The X-Files)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) 10:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a start on this in a day or so. Should be fun to review some of your stuff! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Generally a pretty sound article with no issues. I've undertaken a couple of minor copyedits. I've tried to curb my natural Britishness on spelling, grammar and punctuation, but if I suggest you do something that is wrong or awkward in Americanese, please let me know: similarly, if my copy edits have made a mess of USEng then please feel free to revert.


 * Lede
 * No issues with this section
 * Plot
 * Why "Plot Summary", instead of "Plot"? No problems either way, but the other X-Files articles seem to just have "Plot". Your call either way – and it's not going to stop a GA.
 * I didn't realise Hammond / Oswald / Liquori were adolescents until later in the article (and it's supposed to be one of the more important aspects of the episode. Perhaps re-work the first line to that effect along the lines of "In a Connerville, Oklahoma video arcade, three adolescents...."


 * Production
 * No issues with this section


 * Reception
 * When was the episode first released (at least US market if not one other main one)? If the info isn't to hand for other markets, then just the US date and the channel too.
 * "Nielsen rating of 10.9, with a 20 share" I have no idea what this means! At least link Nielsen and give some frame of reference for 10.9 and 20 (percentages? millions?)


 * Footnotes
 * It's a really minor and nit-picking point, but after you need a space between pp. (or p.) and the page number.

Only a few point to pick up on overall: nice work and if you can sort the above out in a week then it's a GA for you. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All the points above were addressed: thanks for that. Unfortunately a few subsequent edits have caused a few other wrinkles in the process. I've sorted one or two of them myself, but if you could sort out two of them I'd be grateful.


 * Footnotes
 * There are now two different formats of date format in the footnotes: long and short. I don't mind which you choose, but pick one and stick to it
 * The following citation looks wrong to me:
 * 1 et al should only be used for more than six authors in APA style, so please name the others (up to a max of six)
 * 2 The title is misspelt (Thirds season)

We're very close on the GA front, but please sort these out and we'll be good to go. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one that wrote the citation for the DVD notes, so I'll chime in here. There are seven directors (that I counted) in the season - would it be better to list them all, then? I can add them all in for the uses of that citation in this and other articles if it would be preferable. And the long vs short citation thing - the short citations are used for page references for books, long form are for websites or other media. It's a mix that's been used and accepted before, especially as short-style linking to websites is a bit awkward and redundant. GRAPPLE   X  00:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

These have now been rectified, however.
 * With reference to the DVD citation, I suggest we follow the 'normal' academic route (or one of them, at least): in the references you list full details of the work - including all authors. In the footnotes the first author plus et al "Carter, et al (1995-1996)" which will point people to the full reference details below.

Concluding
Good effort: all OK now for the GA. Well done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)