Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Home (The X-Files)/archive3


 * 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 promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC).

Home (The X-Files)

 * Nominator(s): Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC), Bruce Campbell 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)''

Third time is the charm! This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. This article was just nominated a few weeks ago, but the discussion closed due to lack of comments. I'm hoping this time, we can get some more comments! As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I just wasn't sure how technical the term was. You have my support. Glimmer721  talk  01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – The full Booker reference must have been moved up. Sorry about that. Anyway, the article now appears to meet the criteria. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. (This is the only thing that I've looked at.) The MoS states "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." There are 16 examples of ," and some of them are from titles, so those at least should be ", EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have corrected these instances. Thank you for the catch!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN10: formatting
 * I believe I have fixed it, correct?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FN18: italicization is backwards and AP is agency not author
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, look at treatment of author names - in a couple of cases you've got first and/or middle names as last names, and you're inconsistent in how names are presented
 * Whoops! Dumb mistake! Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FN52: author is incorrect, missing italics on publication title
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FN53: why the doubling?
 * Another dumb mistake.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
 * I think I've fixed some issues with this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
 * I believe I have fixed the issues.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes Great Graves a high-quality reliable source? Same with Return to Eden and Lulu. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed "Great Graves", since it could be backed up with a better source. As for "Return to Eden", it is the autobiography of an actor featured in this episode Tucker Smallwood, and the use of the reference seems to satisfy the conditions for its inclusion according to WP:SELFPUB.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All of my comments from this and the last FAC have been resolved, so I'm happy to support this one. Keep up the good work!  Ruby  2010/  2013  14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Support (with a copy-editing disclaimer): Changes look good. I do wonder if "deliberately wanted to go back to the stylistic origins of the series" is still a bit of a tease. It would be nice to know how the series style had changed since then so that we can see why the episode was such a departure. But this does not affect my support if you want to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean by "tease". The problem is, I don't have the source anymore, since BruceCampbell added that bit, so I didn't want to change or add anything since I wouldn't know what I'm doing.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on comprehensiveness and prose - no prose-clangers jump out at me....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose  until the prose is sorted out. I shouldn't be finding things like "Mulder and Scully investigate the their now-abandoned residence ..." after three weeks at FAC. And here are examples of some other stuff:


 * "In retaliation, they break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night to murder him and his wife." That's their motivation, but did they actually murder the sheriff and his wife? A reference to "the Taylor murders" suggests that they did, but they could be different Taylors as things stand.


 * "I'm not at all fond of "intended for" as in "The duo intended for their first episode back to be as ambitious and shocking as possible".


 * "... and was surprised when he first received the screenplay". When did he receive it for the second time?


 * "During the sheriff's death scene Smallwood insisted on performing his own stunts, but he quickly changed his mind after hitting his head on the ground while performing a dive." That repeated "performing ... performing" is rather awkward.


 * "After omitting the controversial audio and applying some careful editing, the censors eventually approved the episode." What that's saying is that it was the censors who did the work, which seems rather unlikely.


 * "However, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter was excessive." Shouldn't be starting a sentence with "however".

Eric  Corbett  22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issues that you have pointed out. How does it look now?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: While looking through and doing some more copy-editing, I noticed that "Heim (2008)" is not in the reference list but is used as a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My mistake. Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article, would make a good contribution to our FA collection. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Have I missed the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has done it yet.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All images outside the one in the infobox are legitimately freely licensed or PD, and all required information is present. The infobox image is a non-free screenshot. It also has all required information present and has a rationale, but it is not clear to me whether the image's use fulfills all of our non-free content criteria. Screenshots are often listed for deletion at FFD, and are usually only kept if the contents of the image are mentioned in sourced commentary in the article body. The claim is considerably stronger if the contents are mentioned outside the "plot" section, since those sections are only loosely sourced. In this case, it would be easy for the "Initial ratings and reception" section to briefly mention that a scene shows a family burying a child alive—there are places where this would fit naturally—and doing so would strengthen the non-free use claim immeasurably. (Without that, the contents of the scene are not mentioned in clearly-sourced commentary, and the use could be held to violate our WP:NFCC.) – Quadell (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * I tweaked it and added a blurb in the "Initial ratings and reception" section. How's it look now.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   07:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.