Talk:Fire (The X-Files)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Will begin read through and initial review within 24 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Plot


 * "Mulder tells Scully that Phoebe is playing mind games with him by approaching him with this case, because of a debilitating fear of fire." -who, Mulder? Perhaps say " because he has a debilitating fear of fire".
 * "Bob the Caretaker" paints the home with rocket fuel. What do you mean paints it with rocket fuel? Literally has a can of rocket fuel and brush?
 * "While there, he burns down a local bar with apparent pyrokinetic abilities." Why does he do this, just for the sake of it?
 * Mulder and Scully find the driver's charred body in the bathroom... Suddenly everything upstairs starts bursting into flames. I think this should be in the same paragraph.
 * Fixed the first one. As for number two, that's exactly what he does. I'll clarify it a bit better. And for number three, it never explains why. I guess the producers wanted an excuse to show that the guy literally controlled fire instead of just being an arsonist, but it's never made clear. Got the fourth one. GRAPPLE   X  12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you say Mark Sheppard (L'ively) just so we know who he is without looking in the infobox. It may be clear if you really look at it but initially I jumped to the conclusion is was a stunt man or something.
 * Production
 * "The exterior shots of the hotel were filmed on location at a hotel in Vancouver which had, coincidentally, been rebuilt after burning to the ground" Do you know which hotel?
 * Got those. GRAPPLE   X  13:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Broadcast

"retrospective of the first season in Entertainment Weekly rated the episode a B, praising Mark Sheppard's "sizzling performance", though finding that the character of Phoebe Green was a detriment to the episode." Why was she a detriment to the episode?
 * Quoted the article a bit better to explain that. GRAPPLE   X  13:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's OK now thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

No problems here. Good job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)