Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Home (The X-Files)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Maralia 23:23, 28 November 2012.

Home (The X-Files)

 * Nominator(s): Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The X-Files, a television series known for regularly featuring demonic possession, supernatural monsters and the forces of the occult, certainly has some spooky episodes. But the installment widely cited as the scariest of them all is "Home", probably one of the most gruesome things ever broadcast by a major network. It features a lovely narrative centering on a clan of incestuous mutant serial killers. I am nominating this for featured article because after successively promoting an episode of the same series to FA, I believe this one meets the same criteria. It was copy-edited, A-Class nominated and is a current GA, and hopefully it continues a long precedent set by the X-Files WikiProject. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I nominated this for GA awhile ago, and have been pleasantly surprised by the improvements that have gone on since then. Furthermore, I commented on the A-class review, silently observed the "Informal Review", and helped provide BC with a few extra articles. I feel that this article is complete, meets the prose requirements, and makes excellent use of pictures. Thus, I throw my support to it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support another fine job from a project that just keeps on going (we need to finish Season 4 later). igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We? What is your involvement in the article?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not talking about the article... He was making a note to the editors active in the X-Files Project.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Some more comments after the article's A-Class review. Overall, the article is solid.


 * If possible, please remove the border from the infobox image per WP:IMAGES; I tagged the image for that problem


 * I simply took the opportunity to upload a new main image, this time in slightly better resolution. This way the image is a little wider and fits the infobox better, it isn't so awkward. Also filled out the free use rationale in more detail. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "the science fiction" would add "American" after "the"
 * "The X-Files, and originally aired" not the best grammar, would change to "The X-Files, which originally aired"
 * ""Monster-of-the-Week"" only the Monster-of-the-Week part should be linked, without the " quotation marks being linked
 * "In "Home"" to "In this episode"
 * Link "third season" in first paragraph of lede per WP:UNDERLINK
 * "who left the staff of the show" remove the unneeded "staff" part please


 * As in you mean to remove "staff of the show"? If so changed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "short-lived" does that represent a neutral point of view, who says it was "short-lived"?
 * "series" add "television" at start of that
 * "cancelled" incorrect grammar, please use American English, which would be "canceled", without two "l" there
 * MOS:IMAGELOCATION problems with images starting on left side of section, or sub-sections


 * I believe since it features three images in three consecutive paragraphs, the placement of Chaplin's image is just here, like in "Terms of Endearment", "The Truth", "The Post-Modern Prometheus", etc. Since for one, the image can't be moved down without interfering with the one bellow it, and having four straight images on the right would look more awkward. Either the Chaplin or the Don Knotts image could be removed if necessary. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Vancouver, Canada" again, seems that is should change to "Vancouver, British Columbia" instead, in writing sector
 * As well, two separate links for that now please
 * Link "autobiography" film thing in image caption, see WP:REPEATLINK
 * "Fox executives" link "Fox" per WP:UNDERLINK in filming post-production section
 * "The town of Home" huh?
 * Episode takes place in Home, Pennsylvania, meaning "town of Home" refers to the name of the setting itself. Changed to "The town depicted in "Home" " to make it more clear since admittedly that's confusing as hell. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlink "Fox" in broadcast section, as its first link is above in production, see WP:REPEATLINK
 * "premiered" to "originally aired"
 * The publisher of "AllMovie" is "AllRovi", actually
 * "Time Inc." remove ending dot "."
 * Ref. 18: "The New York Times" should be in italics per WP:MOS; it is a newspaper
 * "FOX Home Entertainment" change to "Fox Home Entertainment" per WP:TRADEMARK.
 * Regarding that same thing, "Fox Home Entertainment" should be "20th Century Fox Home Entertainment"; that's the new name, also link there
 * How is "TV.com" a high-quality reliable source?
 * I'll remove it if you think its necessary, but in its defense, not only does it have an article here, it is owned by CBS Interactive, has had its domain name registered since the mid 90's and employs some reasonably experienced writers. Though it is defined as an Entertainment site. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:DASH concerns, hypten should be en-dash, problem occurs in some reference titles


 * You mean the hyphens? I fixed the three instances I could find, and othersise per WP:How to make dashes I believe the em dashes are done properly now. If not, cite which ones are concerns? Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "TXF Season 4" to "The X-Files"
 * Please sort categories in alphabetical order

TBrandley 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All fixes applied unless otherwise noted. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on all criteria. Very good work. TBrandley 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not ready yet 
 * 1) Why is "often" needed here?  It has often been cited as a seminal episode of The X-Files by both crew members and critics.
 * 2) Three similarly-deformed  ... no hyphen after ly.
 * 3) are sent to investigate when the corpse is found  ... when or after?  The corpse is found when they go to investigate?  So why did they go investigate?
 * 4) the pair meet a family of deformed rednecks who  ... redneck is a pejorative, do the sources/plot use that word, or is it editor choice here?
 * 5) Morgan was so interested by the story  ... by the story?

That is a random sampling of the lead and jumping around: I did not inspect the entire article, and don't expect that fixing these issues alone will resolve my concerns. Please arrange for a copyedit by an uninvolved editor, and I suggest that the prior Supports were not based on thorough review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed your complaints. The article was already copy-edited by an editor not involved with the project in any way at all. If your intention was to help improve the article, could you take some more time and list more than 5 issues, consisting mostly of one-word changes and hyphens? Because if not your comments aren't really that thorough or helpful. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I can't ... fixing a few random occurrences of an article that is not FAC ready will not solve the issue. FAC is not peer review, and this article should be withdrawn and re-worked (evidence the lengthy review just below this).  I further suggest that the reviewers who supported this FAC prior to my and the next review have not engaged or do not understand the criteria, and any of their reviews should be viewed by the delegates accordingly.  Also, independent, uninvolved review is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia, and also hope the delegates disregard the single line supports by project members. FAC is not the place for articles with typos and grammatical errors which I discovered in my review below. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * ""Home" is the second episode of the American fourth season of the science fiction television series The X-Files, which originally aired on the Fox network on October 11, 1996." -- First of all, "second episode of the American fourth season" really stands out as odd; it would read better as "second episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction...". Second, it would be better if you wrote "aired on the Fox Broadcasting Company", because the official name is probably better in this context.
 * "Singer Johnny Mathis refused the producers the rights to use his vocals." -- This sentence seems to jump out of nowhere, and the lead could probably do without it.
 * "Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) are sent to investigate when the corpse is found by children during a sandlot ball game." -- The linking of "sandlot ball" could be breaching WP:OVERLINK, but it's a close call, so just consider it.
 * "During an autopsy, the agents discover that the baby suffocated by inhaling dirt, meaning it was buried alive." -- The linking of "autopsy" and "buried alive" are definitely violations of WP:OVERLINK; these are not uncommon terms.
 * "Mulder and Scully sneak around the house and decide to release the Peacock's pigs to lure them our of the house." -- Do you mean "lure them out of the house"?
 * "She is Mrs Peacock, the mother of the boys, who has been breeding with her sons for years." -- "Mrs" needs a period to close the abbreviation.
 * "Subsequently, the two rejoined the staff of The X-Files and became writers for the fourth season." -- Link "fourth season", as it's the first mention of it within the body of the article.
 * "The episode contained references to popular television: the names Andy Taylor and Barney are references to characters with the same name from The Andy Griffith Show." -- The colon usage in the sentence is a bit awkward; a spaced en-dash might work better.
 * "Sources consulted by the writers include Brother's Keeper, a 1992 documentary film depicting the story of the four Ward brothers." -- Unlink 'documentary film'; WP:OVERLINK.
 * "With an estimated IQ of 68, he escaped prosecution by claiming that the police had tricked him during interrogation." -- Unlink 'IQ'; WP:OVERLINK.
 * "The episode was mainly inspired by a story in Charlie Chaplin's autobiography, about the time he stayed at a tenement home while touring in a British musical theatre." -- The linking of 'autobiography' and 'musical theatre' are violations of WP:OVERLINK.
 * "Morgan was so interested by the story that he decided to use the incident for the basis of the screenplay, though Wong came up with the suggestion to change the son to the mother." -- The wording of "..was so interested by the story..." is awkward – "with the story" or "in the story" is better phrasing.
 * File:Charlie Chaplin.jpg is misplaced; I see TBrandley mentioned this above, and you objected. However, MOS:IMAGELOCATION is a very important guideline for accessibility, and cannot be ignored.
 * "An unspecified crew member asserted, "this is awful even for us", viewing that it was probably the most gruesome episode of the series run." -- "Viewing" is an awkward word choice in this context.
 * "Another uncomfortable moment for the actor involved laying face down in a pool of fake blood for over an hour and half." -- It should be "for over an hour and a half."
 * "David Duchovny agreed with Manners's response to the episode, saying, "I really like that one. Although it didn't scare me." -- When you are using a word that ends with an 's' in a possessive form, it should just have an apostrophe after it. That said, "Manners's" should just be "Manners'".
 * There are several films mentioned in the article. When a film is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, you need to include the film's year in parenthesis. Example: Titanic (1997).
 * "It was viewed by 18.85 million viewers." -- "Approximately" 18.85 million viewers; Nielsen ratings are not exact. Also, the use of 'viewed' and 'viewers' in such close succession sounds awkward – it would be better to say something like "It was viewed by approximately 18.85 million people."
 * "John Keegan from Critical Myth gave the episode a largely positive review and awarded it 8 out of 10." -- 8 out of 10 what?
 * "VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club listed it amongst the 10 best chapters of the series, writing that it was one of the scariest hours of television that he had seen." -- 'Amongst' is an awkward word, and it would be better to use 'among' wherever possible.
 * "The Vancouver Sun named it one of the best stand-alone episodes and commented that because of its horrific themes of incest, the episode "doesn't pull any punches."" -- Don't personify magazines; if no author is given, use a generic term. Also was TVS calling it one of the best stand-alone eps of the series or of all time?
 * "Starpulse named the installment as an honorable mention as one of the ten best X-Files installments." -- Weird phrasing. "Starpulse gave the installment an honorable mention as one of the ten..." reads much better.
 * "Connie Ogle from PopMatters listed the Peacock family amongst the greatest monsters of the series, viewing that it was a miracle that the program "slipped past" the censors." -- Again with 'amongst'.
 * Some footnotes include the work and the publisher, others just the work and vice versa; please include both the 'work' and the 'publisher'/'magazine' and 'publisher' wherever applicable.
 * TV.com and Television Without Pity are totally unacceptable sources, with no reliability or credibility.

My review was edit conflicted with SandyGeorgia's and I share her concerns of the rubber stamp supporting by some as well. TRLIJC19 ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the very useful comments TRLIJC19, and by the time it is nominated next time, I can only hope it no longer exhibits any of the issues brought up here. Your oppose was really helpful and will definitely lead to its improvement. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a question, why is Television Without Pity unreliable? It's owned by NBCUniversal and is just a review site run by writers who have editorial oversight.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comments - I have expressed concerns about superficial supports for these X-Files candidates in the past. I hope the nominator responds more positively on this occasion. I don't want to see any issues raised described as "shit" in edit summaries as they were here, or reviewers described as "goons" as here. I will be watching this nomination particularly closely and will give critical reviews far more weight than single-sentence declarations of support. Graham Colm (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator here. Maralia (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.