Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice (The X-Files)/archive2


 * 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2015.

Ice (The X-Files)

 * Nominator(s): G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more well-known episodes of The X-Files, and one of my personal favourites. It's been to FAC before, where it was failed based on prose issues; since that time it's had another thorough copy-edit by User:Miniapolis, whose efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm also aware that I wasn't particularly active during the last FAC, which I assure you won't be an issue this time around. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to look at this one, and if you haven't seen the series at all before, I would say this is a good place to start. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see this has been through FAC once before and the writing quality has been improved upon, so good job to and to copy editor  for working on that. The article is of high quality from an important point in time within the series formative period. The writing quality is high level yet also succinct and concise throughout. I especially like the Conception and writing sect and how the subject is placed within a wider context of influence upon it from popular culture prior to its inception. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * "an outpost in Icy Cape" Isn't this usually termed the Icy Cape? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The article on the location uses "the Icy Cape" once, and just "Icy Cape" throughout, but I have no idea what local usage would be. G RAPPLE   X  12:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps worth looking into? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The USGS list it without the definite article (here), even though they do have a list of variant names for it. G RAPPLE   X  12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we should follow that, also sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've now added the "the" in, in light of this. G RAPPLE   X  15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misraed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "and another is recovered from one of the bodies." Which bodies?
 * Those of the scientists already dead at the location, would "one of the scientists' bodies" work better? G RAPPLE   X  12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed. G RAPPLE   X  13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "250,000-year-old item encased in ice" What item?
 * Hawks is only mentioned in an image caption, not the article text.
 * Oversight on my part. He's debated as being the real director but without wanting to get into that I've just noted his role as producer. G RAPPLE   X  14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the sources in question don't specify this, or I'd have added it. I'm not even sure I could track down the original article as my assumption would be that presuming it to be the correct one would be OR. G RAPPLE   X  14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would remain intact " What would remain intact?
 * Yeah I think the copy-edit lost something here. This is a common enough practice with film/TV censors--you film a questionable scene with more footage than you intend, so that when a censor asks for X amount of material to be cut, you still end up with a scene using as much footage as you had actually wanted: you want a minute to survive so you film two minutes and cut one out. I'll try to reword it shortly. G RAPPLE   X  14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this look? G RAPPLE   X  15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wong is not introduced in the article body.
 * Fixed. G RAPPLE   X  14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Scaring the hell of out of the audience" Is this what the actual article says?
 * Fixed. G RAPPLE   X  15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, anymore on the "item" comment? FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I dug out the sources in question again last night and neither confirm the nature of the object (I get the feeling it would have been something mundane and that the age of it was the key factor). G RAPPLE   X  09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - all my comments have been addressed, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Barbara (WVS)

 * Support FA status - I am considering nominating an article for FA status and this discussion has been a great example of congeniality, responsiveness and collaboration. It appears to me to meet WP:FA?. The tone is encyclopedic and yet engaging at the same time. I am not a fan of articles that describe television plot lines, but this article has changed my mind. Good fortune on the rest of the review. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – I was there, way back when, when this was first submitted. It has come a long way, and I see no reason to not promote it. The copy-edit looks good, all the sources check out (I know this from personal experience), and the page is organized nicely (with excellent photos).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

 * Support, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this phenomenal article for FAC. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I assess it to meet all the Featured article criteria. I have also completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll not be able to archive the URLs used until later this evening, in the office at the minute and unable to access them; but I have made the suggested links and unlinkings. G RAPPLE   X  15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely response ! The archiving was merely a suggestion, but it will give you peace of mind in the future should those links change or vanish. Again, you've done an extraordinary job with this article. -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl
Generally really good, but there are just a few prose points that I would like to see addressed.
 * In the second paragraph of the lede we start with "FBI special agents..." but I htink that a bit of context would be necessary, i.e. we should start this sentence with something like "The plot of the episode follows FBI special agents...". That way we make it explicitly clear that these sentences are describing the plot of the episode. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. G RAPPLE   X  09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "found a 250,000-year-old item encased in ice" - do we have any idea what this "item" was? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, it's not mentioned in the sources used. I have the feeling (OR, of course) that by the time this was mentioned in an interview, Morgan had probably forgotten the nature of the object and recalled only the fact that it was ancient and buried under ice. G RAPPLE   X  09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Morgan and writing partner James Wong" would perhaps work better as "Morgan and his writing partner..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended. G RAPPLE   X  09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the "Filming" section, we have the following two sentences, "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would last as long as intended if Fox's standards-and-practices officials asked for cuts, no edits were requested. "Ice" was the first significant role in the series for makeup effects artist Toby Lindala, who become its chief makeup artist", which are then followed by a citation. I take it that this citation covers the material in both sentences, but given that the second sentence does not directly follow on from the first, this is not completely clear. I would suggest replicating the citation at the end of the first sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not my personal preference but I've doubled it up there. G RAPPLE   X  09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources review
No spotchecks carried out.
 * Ref 23 requires a date
 * Ref 35: the publisher is given as "TV Squad". I think this should be Huffpost TV

Subject to these points, citations are properly formatted, and sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 23 now has publication dates updated; 35 carries "TV Squad" in the work field and Huffpost TV, piped to The Huffington Post, in the publisher field now. Thanks. G RAPPLE   X  09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.