Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Existence (The X-Files)/1

Existence (The X-Files)

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Endorse fail Lack of reliable secondary sources per consensus below. Geometry guy 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer failed the article because it did not have more than three references, even if they referenced the whole articles and were reliable sourced. The reviewer has clearly stated that he believes that the article is not references, because it does not not consist of a high number of references. Which i see as just another Quantity over Quality arguement. To see the discussion between the reviewer and i, see Talk:Existence (The X-Files)/GA1. --TIAYN (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am the GA reviewer who quick-failed this GA nomination. The article is clearly poorly sourced.  When I reviewed it (see reviewed version here), it had 3 references.  The first reference is a DVD audio commentary.  This reference is used to support 95% of the article (everything except the last 3 sentences).  The second reference is an X-files fan site.  The last reference was a link to what appears to be a TV ratings aggregation site, but the link does not provide any information about the episode in question (unless you go through the site and dig for it yourself).  I stand by my quick-fail for this article.    talk 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article was referenced then, and is still well referenced now. The only difference is that i added two reviews which didn't have anything to do with the above discussion, the second being that i referenced the plot overview as a compromise with the reviewer, even if i don't think its really neccessary. --TIAYN (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, to see our discussion and opinions, see Talk:Existence (The X-Files)/GA1.

Comments I'm coming here after seeing the edit summary associated with removing this page from WP:GAN. I have to say, I agree with Snottywong's decision. The three references that were there at the time of the review are simply not good enough. I'm actually surprised the article exists because none of your sources showed that the episode was particulary notable, and that's a criteria for all articles: So from that viewpoint, the article has problems, and as Snottywong has said, there's simply not enough outside coverage. I see you've since added additional citations, but I don't think they add anything:
 * The audio commentary only qualifies as WP:SELFPUB and primary source.
 * The fansite may or not accurately report the ratings. But we don't know that. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. This Dispatches has further detailed information.
 * The review plot summary at the BBC page is there only because the BBC aired the episode, not because it's a particularly notable episode. It's like having a listing in TV Guide or Radio Times. Coverage at a broadcaster's website doesn't convey unique notability.
 * "In the United Kingdom, "Existence" received 65 thousand viewers, placing The X-Files number three in the top ten broadcasts for Sky1 that week behind Star Trek Voyager and The Simpsons." OK, so you found another reference, but does it mean much? Does it help to establish notability for the episode? No. Because poularity (or lack of) ≠ notability. Anyway, 65,000 (in numbers please, per MOS:NUM) viewers in the UK is piss-poor, so unless the fact that it got so few viewers is particularly important, it doesn't mean a thing. Also note that Sky1 is a satellite/cable channel that via BskyB reaches just 13 million households in 2009. In 2001 that figure was much lower. And, then you note that it wasn't even the most watched show of that week on that channel, but the third.
 * You've also added a review from someone writing for a local rag of a small Californian town. What about reviews from trade magazines and major syndicates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), and major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times)? It is these publications you should be seeking out.
 * That http://entil2001.com/series/x-files/reviews/season8/8-21.html initially appears to be a fansite, but turns out is a blog written by one guy who claims to be a published TV critic writing for various outlets for over 5 years. It doesn't look like a RS to me, but if you can find any of his published articles, that would satisfy. He claims to write for Media Blvd Magazine, and that site agrees, but who are they?

Looking past that, the article also has other issues, such as only loosely following the MOS, including WP:OVERLINK and MOS:TV. For instance, you have too many words and phrases that are wikilinked next to each other, making them appear to be one single link. You also incorrectly use hyphens instead of WP:DASHES. With regards to the prose and stuff, in the plot you have "each time growing into what looks like the beginnings of a spine." Who says it looks like this? It sounds like WP:OR? Later, "so the producers got a retired LAPD officer", which is lazy, informal writing, and poor WP:TONE. In Reception, you say "The episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 8.4, with a 13 share." The average reader doesn't know what this means, so you have to explain it to them. Other points with the prose include sentences such as "The episode first aired in the United States on May 20, 2001 on Fox, and subsequently aired in the United Kingdom." Does this mean it aired immediately following the Fox broadcast, or were there days, weeks or months before it aired in the UK? What about other major countries for which en.wp has readership, such as Canada, Aus, NZ? The sentence "The episode continues from the previous episode, "Essence", where they learn about a new type of alien called a Super Soldier programmed to destroy any traces of alien involvement on Earth." -- who are "they" we know nothing about anything in this episode, and the only two people you've mentioned so far are Carter and Manners. Surely you don't mean those two?

Other things in the lead include the rather hashed plot summary. Here you should be highlighting the two or three main storylines of the episode and summarising the episode in the plot section, ie Skinner kills Krycek, Mulder learns that Billy is a super soldier while Reyes assists Scully in giving birth while being hunted by a group of the super soldiers, and Mulder and Scully confess their love for each other. You also say "It introduced the story arc which would continue throughout the ninth season .", but you leave the reader hanging by not actually saying what that arc is.

The plot summary doesn't actually summarise the plot, rather it gives a play-by-play of each scene: "Alex Krycek has been seated in a chair in Assistant Director Walter Skinner's office", "Krycek gets up from his chair in Skinner's office and starts running out the doorway." Also, in the plot, you have to give further details as to who these characters are. Someone who clicks the Random button and ends up on this page may well have no clue who Billy, Scully, Mulder, and everyone are, so you need to add more WP:CONTEXT, but be succinct (WP:CONCISE) at the same time. Additionally, you don't mention some of the more important parts of the episode, such as Scully actually giving birth (which since you have a fair use image of that scene, you must discuss it per WP:NFCC), Mulder and Scully declaring their love for each other and kissing, Billy being a Super Soldier, etc etc. It's like you don't want to include spoilers, but spoilers are allowed and encouraged on Wikipedia.

Every single thing you mention in the lede that isn't referenced (so all of it) must be repeated in the main body of the article and offer more insight. So where you say it begins the story arc for season 9. What is that arc? How does it do that? Series creator Chris Carter wrote the episode, so one might assume this episode is supposed to have more importance to the series over other episodes that he lets the staff writers write. Has he said anything anywhere about how he wrote this? What he was thinking? What he had in mind? Was he providing closure to any major storylines or setting new ones up, and how did he achieve this? I know you said no books have been published about season and 0, but what about elsewhere? Trade magazines such as Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, EW, TV Guide, etc may have had an interview with him around the time of the episode airing. The episode was also released on a 4-disc "Mythology" Collectors DVD pack containing 14 episodes from season 8 and 9. There's a documentary included in it with an interview with Carter that may answer some of these questions. (By the way, you say in the article that it's this episode that begins the new mythology arc, but Carter says the Super Soldiers mythology arc begins with "Per Manum", an earlier season 8 episode, so some of the facts in the article are not entirely correct.

You don't have a cast section, so when you first mention Annabeth Gish in the production section, your reader has no idea she plays Monica Reyes. Same with Mitch Pileggi and Nicholas Lea. It's nice to know that it was a difficult scene, but the reader doesn't care if you don't tell them who these people are. "The last scene with Doggett and Reyes in Kersh's office is the birth of the "New X-Files"" It would be nice if all this stuff could be covered with a reference. A reader has to assume that the ref at the end of the paragraph covers all this info. The episode is, as you've mentioned, fairly reliant on the existing themes, mythologies and continuing story arcs of the series, so as per MOS:TV, you could try mentioning that, and finally, you're missing a distribution section, which could cover airdates, networks, countries, availability on new media such as iTunes, Hulu, Amazon Unbox, VHS and DVDs, off-network syndication, etc etc.

So as I said, I agree with Snottywong's decision to quick fail this article. It clearly -- to me -- doesn't fit the criteria for GA, in fact, I'm having a hard time thinking the article meet's WP's criteria for existing, but that's for a different venue. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Matthew, thanks for taking the time to give this article (and editor) what it really needed: a peer review. TIAYN, GA is a pretty stringent standard.  Less than 0.5% of WP articles are GA or better.  So, when you nominate an article for GA, you have to be prepared for harsh criticism.  If the article isn't up to the standard, people are going to let you know.  If the article is clearly not even close to GA, people are rarely going to waste their time giving it a serious review.  Try not to take it personally.  I know you probably waited several months for a review, but that is only evidence of the huge backlog of GA nominated articles, which can't be allowed to get clogged up with nominations that are clearly not GA.  Take matthew's advice above and improve the article, get better acquainted with WP policies and the MOS, and then resubmit the article when it is truly ready.  Good luck.     talk 13:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment before closing GA is not a very stringent standard, and the fact that only c. 0.25% of articles are GA has nothing to do with the GA standard, which is defined by the GA criteria. When GA first began 0% of articles were GA. Geometry guy 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)