Talk:Duane Barry/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Some comments: There is still a few things left before GA standard are reached, but the article is close, and all that remains is fairly detailed stuff. Arsenikk (talk)  20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ The lead is somewhat short. Add more about the plot and the awards, plus that it is part of a double episode.
 * ✅ In the lead, it says: "...and subsequently aired in the United Kingdom". There is nothing wrong with stating the original air date, but the way this sentence is structured, it makes it seem like it only aired in Canada, the US and the UK.
 * ✅ There are quite a number of second commas lacking, such as in "In Pulaski, Virginia " and "October 14, 1994 "
 * ✅A hyphen (-) cannot be used as punctuation; either use a spaced endash ( – ) or a unspaced emdash (—). See WP:DASH.
 * ✅Avoid using captialized "FOX"; Fox is not an abbreviation, so using all-caps is a typographical choice (like choice of font).
 * ✅ In the "plot" section, the actors of Scully and Fox are mentioned, but not for the other characters.
 * ✅ Do not make the references "small". Instead, use reflist to portray them as small.
 * ✅I presume ref 1 and 2 cites the full plot. In that case, they should be after each paragraph.
 * ✅ The last paragraph under the plot is too short.
 * ✅ The first sentence under "Conception and cast" is missing a few words to sound right. Try "the episode was originally planned..."
 * ✅ It is not New York Times, but The New York Times
 * ✅ I don't quite understand why "actually" is in quotation marks. Do you mean not actually actually?
 * ✅ There is some overlinking, such as children and pregnancy.
 * It is unclear if the quote in the second paragraph under "conception and cast" is from the newspaper article, or is Carter's words.
 * ✅ Why is Carter suddenly wikilinked under "filming"?
 * ✅ The entire first paragraph under "filming" needs to be touched up. It seems to say that Carter doesn't know how to direct, it doesn't really say who directed the episode, and that had someone stating that Carter is a great director.
 * ✅ Suddenly there is a link to Duane Barry (that redirect back to the episode article). Please remove.
 * ✅ Instead of "In total, it took the course of 45 minutes", just say "it took 45 minutes". It says exactly the same thing, but in less words and is easier to understand.
 * ✅ The sentence "It was much "teamwork" required to film the scene, because of Carter's big ambitions." is a bit fuzzy (especially since it is Carter's commentary that is the source), because terms like "much teamwork" doesn't really mean anything specific, it is just management mambo jumbo.
 * ✅ I think it almost would be best to start anew on the "filming" section, and try to get things a bit more ordered. Start with saying it was Carter's first episode that he directed, and then go into more detail about the planning, then the specific scenes.
 * ❌ With "with a 16 share", do you mean 16%?
 * Don't have a clue myself... But its written like that in most episoe articles which include such information.. --TIAYN (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ A few sentences, like the first two under reception (before my copyedit) are a bit short, and i linked them together with an "and".
 * ✅ What were the nominating rationales for the Emmy's?
 * ✅ Fine that they were awarded some rewards and the people who made it liked it, but where there no critics that reviewed it?
 * ✅ Much better. There is one more thing, during the second paragraph of the lead: "The episode received a decent Nielsen household and syndication rating compared to other episodes of the season, it was generally positively received by fans and critics alike. Although the episodes earned decent Nielsen household and syndication ratings in the United States compared to previous episodes of the season, it was generally well-received by fans and critics alike." The two sentences repeat each other a lot. Would it not be possible to merge them (it says "earned decent Nielsen household and syndication ratings" twice). The other problem is that is say despite [the ratings], it was ... well-received ... . There is no conflict between having a decent rating and being well-received, so use some other wording than despite (or leave the whole comparison out the second time). Arsenikk (talk)  09:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article. I am sort of on and off watching The X-Files right now, so I will probably not review articles that I haven't seen recently, since I havn't watched the series since its original airing. I will try to review any first and second, and eventually third, season episodes some time (although there is a huge backlog and I am trying to prioritize some other articles too). Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk (talk)  10:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing the article!! :D. --TIAYN (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is too trivial, but the old movie that is playing on tv at the beginning is "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" with Bing Crosby.