Talk:Humbug (The X-Files)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:

Having read the article I was left wondering where the episode's title came from. Also, I note that the reception section seems generally positive; given that the episode was nominated for awards it was probably well received, but I just want to double check that there aren't important negative opinions missing. Otherwise, it seems to cover the main points and satisfy criterion 3.
 * The title is actually spoken during the episode, referring to Barnum's use of the Feejee mermaid. I can't find anything actually saying that that's what the episode is named after. They could have named the episode after the script was written, or just worked the title into the dialogue. It's not in the official guide, and there's no dvd commentary. I could maybe work it into the plot, what do you think?
 * No need. If the sources don't go into it, there's not much that can be done really. Plus if a reader's curious, they can search for humbug and put 2 and 2 together. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In revisiting one of the sources to address your concern below, I found that it did actually mention this. Although it's not directly from the horse's mouth that that's how the title evolved, the secondary source mentions that the title is "a reference to the machinations of P. T. Barnum..." - so, I've mentioned it in the plot.-- Beloved Freak  14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would actually be surprised if there were no negative reviews at all, since it was such a different episode from the ones that came before, but I've not been able to find any. I will keep looking though.
 * Fair enough. There's no point in putting undue weight on a negative review (if there is one) if the majority are positive. Given the context, I'm happy that the reception section is balanced. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The prose could use a little work in places: Why does Cox decide "Humbug" was a pivotal episode? This needs to be explained. Is it because it broke the mould of the series, or it helped with character development, or set up something later in the series. I think with a few tweaks the article will pass the GA criteria. Nev1 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "When Mulder asks after the welfare of The Conundrum, who looks unwell...": unwell repeated
 * I've reworded this, see what you think.-- Beloved Freak  18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "By the time it was completed, Morgan's script turned out to be...": I'm not sure the bit before the comma is necessary. It seems a bit wordy and doesn't really add anything. It's logical that it would be the finished script that was considered the funniest episode.
 * Fixed.-- Beloved Freak  18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Humbug", this is highlighted by Dr Blockhead's argument that the freaks add a richness to life that will be eliminated by genetic advancements when everyone will look like Mulder": I'm not sure "when everyone looks like Mulder" is necessary. Mulder was just used as an example by Dr Blockhead because that's who he was talking to, he didn't mean everyone would literally look like Mulder.
 * I comtemplated "when everyone will look the same" or "when everyone will look similar", but it seemed awkward, so I've removed that part of the sentence altogether.-- Beloved Freak  10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain this a bit better. What I'd written before wasn't exactly right, and he doesn't use the word "pivotal", so I was actually changing the meaning there. See what you think. I don't know if I've actually made it worse or not, as I think I'm so familiar with the article now that i can't tell if I'm getting the point across effectively!-- Beloved Freak  14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:

Ok, everything seems to be in order and I've listed this as a Good Article. Well done. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)