Talk:Ghost in the Machine (The X-Files)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  R uby2010   comment!  17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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:

Comments

 * FOX -> Fox network
 * Fixed
 * A lot of "It was..." in the lead; try changing it up a bit
 * Fixed
 * Plot is waaaay too long
 * Shortened. If there's anything you think it could lose on top of what I've trimmed, let me know.
 * 1X06: Are you sure that's the correct production code?
 * Yep. The pilot was 1x79, so all the other episodes of the first season have a production code one less than their number in broadcast order.
 * Any DVD special features on episode?
 * None - it's not even mentioned in the season overview documentary either. :(
 * Make clear Nielsen ratings refers to US, not UK
 * Fixed.
 * Critical reception needs expanding
 * Beefed out the quotations and the like to expand the section.
 * "Keith Phipps, writing for The A.V. Club, was more favourable to the episode, rating it a B-, feeling that the similarities to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Demon Seed were effective, adding however, that although the plot worked well, it had dated poorly.[12]" Split into two sentences
 * Done.
 * Fix titles in refs 11-13 (no need to have EW.com etc in them; just use article title)
 * Fixed.
 * Not sure how good the justification is for the screenshot; make more clear in image caption of its importance (such as the COS was criticized by critics...) or something else signifying its significance. Otherwise it may need to be removed and deleted.
 * Done. If more work needs done for this, let me know.

I believe the above issues should take less than a week to address, so I'll place the review on hold for seven days. Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I believe I've addressed the points you've raised, though I'll be about for a good while if you have any further concerns. Thanks again! GRAPPLE   X  23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I pass it, you need to do one more thing: the rationale you added to the screenshot should also be added to the infobox caption to ensure it is needed (this will also be helpful for the reader). Thanks,  R uby2010   comment!  00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this okay? It goes to three lines, I don't know if that's too much or not. GRAPPLE   X  01:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Pass for GA. Nice work, and keep 'em coming!  R uby2010   comment!  01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I've left some comments at Talk:The Lie (Lost)/GA1 as well if you've not seen yet. GRAPPLE   X  01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)