Wikipedia:Peer review/The X-Files/archive3

The X-Files
This peer review discussion has been closed. Although I am not a major contributor to this article, I am interested in seeing where this article should go from here. It was a good article once (now it's C-class), and hopefully it can get back to that status. One of the problems I notice is that it's long; how should we deal with that?
 * Previous peer review

Much appreciated, Hardtofindaname 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason for it to not be a GA, is the grammar. If you can fix the grammar, it can make it to GA-class. --TIAYN (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to go through the article and tighten up some of the sentences. Thanks! Hardtofindaname 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article has potential but needs substantial editorial work to make it less meandering, to make sure the sources are reliable, and to fix many errors or omissions in the citations.

Unnecessary detail "In November, 2001, Carter and the production crew of The X-Files decided to pursue a second feature film adaptation of the series, following the 1998 film. Carter was expected to collaborate with Frank Spotnitz, who had co-written the first film, on a script for the follow-up. Production of the film was slated to begin after the completion of the ninth season of the television series, with a projected release in December, 2003. In April, 2002, Carter reiterated his desire and the studio's desire to do a sequel film. He planned to write the script over the summer and begin production in Spring or Summer 2003 for a 2004 release. Carter described the film as being stand-alone, 'We're looking at the movies as stand-alones. They're not necessarily going to have to deal with the mythology.' Director Rob Bowman, who had directed various episodes of The X-Files in the past as well as the 1998 feature film, expressed an interest in filming the sequel in July, 2002, but it was later known that Carter was going to take over director duties for the film."
 * I think the article would be stronger if trimmed substantially. For example, here's a quote from the "Cancellation and future" subsection:

"The X-Files: I Want to Believe became the second movie based on the series, after the original 1998 film adaptation, The X-Files: Fight the Future. Filming took place in Vancouver and ended on March 11, 2008. The movie was directed by Carter and co-written with Frank Spotnitz. It was released in the United States on July 25, 2008. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Chris Carter said that if I Want to Believe proved successful, he would propose that a third movie go back to the television series' mythology and focus on the alien invasion foretold within the series, due to occur on December 22, 2012."

The essence of this might be captured in three sentences: "After 'The X-Files: Fight the Future', the original 1998 film adaptation, 'The X-Files: I Want to Believe' became the second movie based on the series. Filming took place in Vancouver and ended in March 2008. The movie, directed by Carter and co-written with Frank Spotnitz, was released in the U.S. in July 2008." Perhaps something about the mythology might be added to this, but the details about the internal debates over the script and the discussions about what might happen in the future cause reader fatigue (in this reader, anyhow).

References
 * Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source for itself. Thus citation 1, which sources Wikipedia to Wikipedia, won't do. To fix this, you'd need to find a reliable source outside of Wikipedia and to link to the url with the data supporting the claim.
 * The episode is the reference, not the wikipedia article! --TIAYN (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation 2 has a dead url.
 * Citation 4 uses two different date formats, m-d-y and d-m-y. You need to choose one format and stick with it throughout the citations. Since most of the citations use m-d-y, I'd suggest using that for every date in the citations.
 * Citation 6 lacks an access date and the author's name (Maureen Ryan). A good rule of thumb for Internet citations is to include the author, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of that can be found.
 * Citation 7 lacks an access date; Entertainment Weekly needs italics; Wikipedia does not use ALL CAPS for titles even if the source does. It uses title case, like so: "The 'X-FILES' Builds a Cult Following by Following the Occult".
 * Citation 14 lists The X Tapes as the publisher, but the publisher actually is Heiran Publishing, which appears to be a personal blog or web site. Generally personal blogs or self-published web pages are not considered reliable sources as defined by WP:RS. What makes this site an exception? Do all of the other cited sources qualify as RS? If not, they should be replaced by RS sources, if any can be found.
 * It's not a block and its an interview, meaning it reaches the Reliabiltiy guideline. --TIAYN (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The link checker tool that lives here finds several dead urls in citations.
 * The dabfinder tool that live here finds several links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended target.
 * Generally, all of the citations need to be looked over for completeness, consistency, and adherence to generally accepted Manual of Style guidelines as noted in the above examples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Hardtofindaname 05:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)