Talk:Nothing Important Happened Today/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I saw this and went, "Yah! I get to review an X-Files episode!" It's one of my favorite shows! Although I must admit, the later seasons are not my favorite of the series, but I'll try and do this review justice. --Christine (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As is my custom, I'll use the GA criteria to guide my review.

* Well-written:

The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.

For the most part, the prose is well-done.

It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

I have very few problems with this item. You might want to include a few summary statements from the "Production" and "Reception" section, in the first paragraph. It definitely helps to be a viewer of the show to understand some of the plot summary. If you were to explain everything--all the back story--this section would be way too long. I would think that this is an issue for other summaries of TV serials like The X-Files, though. I suggest looking at other summaries of other similar shows to see what they do, if you haven't already done so. On a more picky note, be careful of your punctuation. Watch your use of quotation marks; as explained in the MOS, it's WP practice to put the quotations on the outside of periods. Here's one instance of this kind of error: According to Lawless, one of the main reasons why she made an appearance on the show, was that her daughter was a "mad 'X-Files' fan." Watch the over-wikilinking. In the previous sentence, it's really not necessary to link "daughter". A good rule of thumb when wikilinking is whether or not it would contribute to the reader's understanding of the article. Now, if you were to link to an article about Lawless' daughter (which is silly, I know, since she's probably not notable enough to even have one), it'd be a good choice. Done

'*Factually accurate' and verifiable: It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

All the sources check out. I don't have access to the DVD commentaries, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about them. I understand that this is a TV episode article, so the sources aren't as reliable as a scientific article. These sources wouldn't be acceptable in other types of articles, but I personally think that for a GA TV episode article, its sources are satisfactory. You might want to consider looking for more reliable sources that convey the same information. For example, are there other X-Files texts out there you could use? I'd still pass this with its current sources, since it doesn't have the potential to become an FA. There are a couple of issues with the sources, though.

When it was announced in 2001, that Xena Warrior Princess was cancelled, Lawless was looking for new opportunities as an actor, to try something different. The way this sentence reads, it seems that Lawless was the one initiating the search for new opportunities, but Carter isn't saying that. He's saying that that's what he thought she'd want. Perhaps you can reword the above to something like: Carter, after learning about the 2001 cancellation of Xena Warrior Princess, thought that Lawless might be interested in new and different opportunities as an actor. Or something like that; tweak it some more if you like. Done

I'm assuming that the info about Lawless' miscarriages is in the DVD commentary. That could be made more clear, though. I suppose you're saying that her high-risk pregnancy prevented her from returning, right? Done

When shooting the episode, Lawless complained that filming the episode, was not like her previous show, Xena: Warrior Princess. Carter called Lawless "hot stuff" and it was fun using her in the show, since the idea of a female Super Soldier had never crossed his or the production crew's minds. This is a little unclear to me. Are you saying that Lawless accused Carter and the crew of sexism or even of sexual harassment on the set? Or was it just that the culture of the two sets were so different? Please explain; I assume that's on the DVD as well. Done

Related to the above: Are there more reliable sources for reviews of this episode? I'd pass this article with the current ones, but in the interest of improving it, I suggest looking for some.

Sorry, but these were the only ones i could find, but i'll take another check. --TIAYN (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found some sources, albeit only being reviews. --TIAYN (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I've always thought that this project is contributing to the "scholarship" about recent TV shows like TXF. And if they're just reviews, you need to be careful about which ones you use. A review posted on a blog isn't reliable enough. --Christine (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It contains no original research.

No problem here, although I have to admit that I don't know if plot summaries are OR. WP convention allows them, so this checks out.

Broad in its coverage: It addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This is the one area that prevents me from passing this article to GA. One image isn't enough. The image page checks out. I'd suggest adding one or two more screenshots from the episodes, or of an image of Lucy Lawless or Chris Carter, or any other of the principles. Done

The images you've added are good, although you need to add the date of the pics to the captions. --Christine (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Comments:

I'd move the last paragraph of the "Production" section up to the first one, since it explains the reason for the episodes' titles.  Done

Nice discussion of this episode. Can't wait until you get to the "Brady Bunch" episode! ;)With these few changes, I'd pass this article to GA. --Christine (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ;) --TIAYN (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. T, I know that I said I'd pass this article after you made the above changes, but I've re-read this article and looked at some of the prose more closely. I'm not the best writer in the world, so I'm probably not the best judge, but I think that this article is kinda weak in that area, and it's a systemic problem. For example, this paragraph:

In the first scene with Lawless underwater, they had her seat-belted into a car thirteen feet underwater. She breathed through with a hookah. Most of the underwater footage was shot at the water tank at Universal. The water tank was only four feet deep, and Lawless was six feet tall, so she was down on her knees during the whole scene. One of the hardest part for the special effects team was to hide the fact that Lawless was using a swimming suit.

The main issue with the above paragraph is that it's a little choppy. One of the ways to avoid choppiness is to write a variety of sentences. The "Plot" section doesn't seem to have this problem, but the later sections do. The only way that I can really explain what I mean is to do a copyedit. I think the prose is adequate enough to make it a GA, though, and I'll go ahead and pass it now, in good faith, before you make the above improvement to the pics' captions mentioned above. Thanks for your hard work and your commitment to TXF articles. --Christine (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)