Talk:The Unnatural (The X-Files)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 19:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	One disambig link (In the Beginning) please fix it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"Well known Dodgers radio announcer" Avoid the words "well known" It is a peacock term. "script over several months" This is too vague, how many months is "several months?" "very loosely based" Too vague, how loosely is "very loosely?" "very intimate understanding" Again too vague, please clarify. "very different kind of X-File" Too vague, please clarify.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref 5: Needs publishing date. Ref 10: Be consistent if you are going to say "retreived" or "retreived on." (You should say retreived). Also, why is it in capitals?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"The name of the team, and that of the Alien ball player at the centre of the story, are very loosely based on a genuine Negro League team - The Homestead Grays and one of its players - Josh Gibson" Unsourced, please provide a citation. I would suggest putting citations in the infobox, so at a glance you can see sources for statements which are likely to be challenged.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image is due to be deleted on December 8, 2011, you need to sort this out.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fix this issues above and the article will pass. You fixed the issues, the article passes. Puffin Let's talk! 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I believe I've fixed all the issues you addressed. As for the picture, the text on the image page says "The previous version(s) of this image are non-free. [...] The current image will not be deleted, only its previous revisions," so I think it is OK! Also, as for the last two MoS complaints, they are part of a quote, so I really can't change them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)