Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive2

===The X-Files===
 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. In light of the new movie coming out this summer, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, I think it would be great to feature the original X-Files article on the main page on or around its release date. Therefore I'd like to get it ready for an FA nomination. Unfortunately I don't think it's anywhere near that point yet. It's too long and too weighed down with fan cruft. Please post your thoughts on cutting it down and improving it, with FA in mind. Thanks!  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/The X-Files/archive2.

I think that a problem that this article has had for a long time is that it has way too many fair use images. There aren't any related images in the Commons?  Lighthead  þ 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, there's absolutely nothing. (It's depressing...)  Lighthead  þ 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think that the main crux of the problem is that the article is too long. The longest parts are the parts dealing with the show itself. I suggest that those parts be split into other articles.  Lighthead  þ 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could steal Lost (TV series)'s method, summarizing each season and splitting each one off into its own article, as one possible option. Or we could just split off the entire "history" section into its own article (which was done at one point).  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article is huge. Much bigger than the last time I checked it out. I've taken a quick look at it and I won't beat about the bush here. Although I have taken a quick read through I didn't notice a Production or Reception section. How was the series received by critics and fans throughout the years? There is some good detail in here and with some careful pruning will produce a FA in time. Nreive (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Structure Check out television style guide on how to structure articles based on tv series. Intro, Characters, Plot, Impact of show on society, Critical reviews, production, then other sections can come in after... I think it would be important to re-structure the article into this kind of format.
 * Infobox Is there no image available with the X-Files logo? Also I would consider removing the use of flag icons in there as per FLAG.
 * Idea and pilot A good read, but a bit out of place. There are elements of Production and plot details in here. It might be best to merge the production details into a separate Production section and move the plot details into a Plot section.
 * History is absolutely huge. I see that there is a suggestion to split this into its own article The X-Files (TV series). While this is a sound idea I would suggest a different name for the article as the main article is essentially about the X-Files which is a TV series. Once this is sorted out, History (or Plot) should only summarize the series overall plot with a "See main..." template linking to the main articles - The X-Files (TV series) and List of X-Files episodes
 * Episode types Good, but I would suggest trimming down on the bulleted lists and write the myth arc episodes in prose. Also take the "Mytharc episodes" heading away - not really needed.
 * Future of The X-Files is rather short. Consider consolidating this info with another section - Production perhaps.
 * Cast of characters is okay, but I would suggest writing a small summary for each actor/character.
 * Legacy seems okay.
 * Influences on the show is okay.
 * Awards is okay.
 * Broadcast history Think about trimming down the broadcast in this country and that country etc. "it has expanded into other countries across the world" will suffice.
 * Taglines think about losing the taglines as this might appear a little FANCRUFTY. Mention the use of taglines in Plot.
 * Merchandise okay, but consider losing the bulleted lists.
 * Ten Thirteen Productions Consider losing this. By all means mention these things, but in the relevant sections. Ten Thirteen could be mentioned in a Production section, Millenium and Harsh Realm in "Legacy" and The Lone Gunmen could go into "Merchandise" as "Spin-off".
 * References There's a "Cite error" at 60.
 * Use of English is inconsistent. e.g. English (UK) "dialogue" and English (USA) "honor". As per ENGVAR and American_and_British_English_differences we should stick to the language usage of the series origin i.e. USA.
 * I followed your suggestion regarding the taglines, and the flags. Reception is right now basically covered by "awards" and by comments spread throughout the history section, where individual episodes/storylines are pointed out for their critical acclaim. It'll take quite a bit of work to go through it and gather up all those comments for a reception section. I might do that one of these days. Also counting among the major-effort changes will be summarizing the seasons and splitting them off. Ugh.  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article split

 * I created Talk:The X-Files/history with links to sub-pages for each season section. I copied and pasted each season from the main article to each sub-page for now, and I figure they can be tweaked into standalone articles. When ready, we can move them to their own articles, and cut down each season in the main article to a brief summary. If anyone has any thoughts on this, or a better idea, please feel free to comment.  Equazcion •✗/C • 11:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Production
I noticed that there was a section on 'early production issues'. That gave me an idea to create a separate article all relating to production issues. The reason being is that I notice that the run-on aspect mostly deals with production issues that could exist as its own article.  Lighthead  þ 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)