Squeeze (The X-Files) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after passing its GAN, I would like to take it to FAC in the future. I know it's not ready for that yet, so I would like to run it through a peer review for two reasons. One, I would like to identify which parts of the article need additional work; and two, I would like to see if anything seems to be missing or incomplete, so that I know what material I should be trying to research. I haven't requested a copy-edit for the article yet as I'm not sure if there'll be major changes to the article based on this review, and if there will be then a copy-edit makes more sense afterwards. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I like this article. I remember watching this episode the night it was aired. Creepy! Here are some things to consider:
- When referring to a person, you only need to give their full name once, and then afterwards use their last name. Avoid being redundant with the names and titles. For example, in the Production section here, Chris Carter is twice referred to as "series creator Chris Carter" in the same paragraph. Just say it once, and then use "Carter" from then on.
- Be sure that the article conforms to the MOS:TV episode structure. This article only has a few sections, but it may make sense to add more.
- The article is kind of light on references, but that may be because this is for a tv episode. I have some experience finding articles about tv for this year (1993), and it's not easy! However, a good journal/periodical database search can unearth some good sources, such as reviews in Entertainment Weekly, Variety, etc. Harder to get online, but very likely to have print material about the X-files is the magazine Starlog. You might need interlibrary loan for that one.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
- I recommend finding a TV episode article that has FA status and use that as a model. For example, The Stolen Earth or A Streetcar Named Marge.
- I'm sure there's much more, and hopefully other editors will chime in. Good luck with the article!Astrocog (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers. I fixed the redundant naming (not sure how I missed that one, since it was probably me who added it both times); and I'm going to have another read through what print sources I have to see what information might be in there that's not already mentioned. Would you recommend re-organising the "Production" section into subsections the way the example articles you've linked? There's probably enough there for a pre-production, production and post-production breakdown to still seem balanced. I'm starting back at uni soon enough so I can check the library system there for Starlog or anything similar. I think Cinefantastique did a spread on the season but it's unavailable online. GRAPPLE X 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have made these changes so far. GRAPPLE X 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- As long as you've got the sources to give reliable details for those sections, go for it. The suggested sections in MOS:TV are general guidelines, with the understanding that not all shows or episodes will have that information. Some articles won't have all the suggested sections, because reliable sources haven't documented information pertaining to them. But X-files is a long-running series with plenty of coverage, so I would put in a good effort to get as many of those sections as possible if you're aiming for FAC in the future.AstroCog (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Have made these changes so far. GRAPPLE X 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers. I fixed the redundant naming (not sure how I missed that one, since it was probably me who added it both times); and I'm going to have another read through what print sources I have to see what information might be in there that's not already mentioned. Would you recommend re-organising the "Production" section into subsections the way the example articles you've linked? There's probably enough there for a pre-production, production and post-production breakdown to still seem balanced. I'm starting back at uni soon enough so I can check the library system there for Starlog or anything similar. I think Cinefantastique did a spread on the season but it's unavailable online. GRAPPLE X 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
- This statement:"The episode earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, with a 13 share—meaning that in the US, 7.2 percent of television-equipped households, and 13 percent of all households actively watching television, were watching the program." --does not make sense to me. It says 7.2% of television-equipped housholds watched the show. Then 13% of all households watched the show. What is this "13%" coming from, if only 7.2% of those that watched it had televisions? I don't understand the math behind this, because the second figure insinuates that 4.8% more people watched it without a television. This is one reason why I've always avoided these "sharing" figures because they often are confusing and require extra explanation just include them in the article. Could you better explain this to at least me? Maybe it's just written wrong or something.
- Additionally, are there any other negative reviews? It seems like the reception section is padded with praise for the episode, and one lone guy basically saying the plot was unbelievable. I just hope the page isn't getting undue weight placed on the positive reviews, because we like to stay as neutral as possible and I'm sure more than just one person didn't like the episode and probably for more reasons than just a ludicrous plot. I don't know 100%, but I would have to imagine they are out there. Whether you have access to them or not, I don't know and that often times is an inhibitor for all editors. You said you were going back to school soon, so maybe the library database will have more? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can take another look for reviews, but the majority of what I've turned up for the series as a whole is mixed at worst I guess. I'll see if there's anything I can turn up from individual newspapers if I search for the different broadcast dates rather than just searching the episode specifically. As for the Nielson thing, that's the wording I copied directly from the article on the ratings themselves - I took it to mean that 7.2% of households which own a television watched the program, whilst the 13% is the number of households who actually had the tv turned on at the time of the broadcast. The 5.8% difference weren't watching tv when the show was on so the two statistics work together so figures aren't skewed by, saw, popular events or blackouts or anything else which would turn off a lot of tv sets. Should the wording be explained better to reflect that? GRAPPLE X 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- If that is what that means, and I don't know for sure and that's why I always just use total viewers, then it should probably read more like: "Of the 13% of households that had their televisions turned on during the (fill in episode air time), 7.2% of them were watching 'Squeeze'". Or something to that extent. The way it reads now, it sounds like more people were watching the show than actually had televisions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think I've explained this a bit wrong, sorry. It's that the number of people viewing the episode (roughly 6.8 million) made up 7.2% of the total number of TV-owning households; but the same 6.8 million was actually 13% of the number of households who watched TV at that time - not that 13% of the population was watching TV, but 13% of those who were watching TV were watching this episode. Neilson_ratings#Ratings.2Fshare_and_total_viewers explains that the first number (the "rating" is a raw percentage of all TV-owning households; the second number is the "share", and is the viewing numbers rated as a percentage of the TVs actually turned on at the time. The wording used in the article is almost verbatim from that Nielson article, though maybe it should be spelt out better since thhe Nielson article is aimed more at statistics-minded readers rather than fans of a particular TV show. How would the following work as a substitute?
- "The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 6.8 million people; which earned it a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, with a 13 share. Roughly 13% of the households which were viewing television at the time were tuned in to the episode; this audience represented 7.2% of all television-owning households in the United States."
- I think that approach also gives the air of not assuming that the ratings are automatically understood as percentages (I didn't know it at all until I started this project, and I doubt I'm the only one). GRAPPLE X 22:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you see how confusing all of that is? It's so easy to misrepresent the data, or for the data not to make sense. Total viewers cannot be misread. To me, the only thing that makes sense is the first part that says the approximate number of total viewers. When you follow it up with "Niselsen rating of 7.2, with a 13 share", it just becomes overly confusing. The average reader does not understand these "shares" and "points". It's more detail than they will be able to figure out and when you have to either send them to another page, or overly explain it on your page then you're doing a disservice to the reader. You've basically distracted them from the article because you had to explain what your information even meant and it's still confusing as it is now. I really think you're wanting to put in statistical data that the average reader will neither care about, or even understand when they are reading the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Perhaps it could be phrased so as to avoid seeming too heavy on the statistics? "The episode's initial broadcast was viewed by approximately 6.8 million people, which represented 13% of the viewing audience during that time". That way the raw viewing numbers still have some context (6.8 million could be high or low figures, but 13% is much easier to evaluate), but there's no complex system of points and ratings. GRAPPLE X 12:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you see how confusing all of that is? It's so easy to misrepresent the data, or for the data not to make sense. Total viewers cannot be misread. To me, the only thing that makes sense is the first part that says the approximate number of total viewers. When you follow it up with "Niselsen rating of 7.2, with a 13 share", it just becomes overly confusing. The average reader does not understand these "shares" and "points". It's more detail than they will be able to figure out and when you have to either send them to another page, or overly explain it on your page then you're doing a disservice to the reader. You've basically distracted them from the article because you had to explain what your information even meant and it's still confusing as it is now. I really think you're wanting to put in statistical data that the average reader will neither care about, or even understand when they are reading the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think I've explained this a bit wrong, sorry. It's that the number of people viewing the episode (roughly 6.8 million) made up 7.2% of the total number of TV-owning households; but the same 6.8 million was actually 13% of the number of households who watched TV at that time - not that 13% of the population was watching TV, but 13% of those who were watching TV were watching this episode. Neilson_ratings#Ratings.2Fshare_and_total_viewers explains that the first number (the "rating" is a raw percentage of all TV-owning households; the second number is the "share", and is the viewing numbers rated as a percentage of the TVs actually turned on at the time. The wording used in the article is almost verbatim from that Nielson article, though maybe it should be spelt out better since thhe Nielson article is aimed more at statistics-minded readers rather than fans of a particular TV show. How would the following work as a substitute?
- If that is what that means, and I don't know for sure and that's why I always just use total viewers, then it should probably read more like: "Of the 13% of households that had their televisions turned on during the (fill in episode air time), 7.2% of them were watching 'Squeeze'". Or something to that extent. The way it reads now, it sounds like more people were watching the show than actually had televisions. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can take another look for reviews, but the majority of what I've turned up for the series as a whole is mixed at worst I guess. I'll see if there's anything I can turn up from individual newspapers if I search for the different broadcast dates rather than just searching the episode specifically. As for the Nielson thing, that's the wording I copied directly from the article on the ratings themselves - I took it to mean that 7.2% of households which own a television watched the program, whilst the 13% is the number of households who actually had the tv turned on at the time of the broadcast. The 5.8% difference weren't watching tv when the show was on so the two statistics work together so figures aren't skewed by, saw, popular events or blackouts or anything else which would turn off a lot of tv sets. Should the wording be explained better to reflect that? GRAPPLE X 19:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That certainly makes a lot more sense than trying to interpret the ratings number. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed it to that wording. I've also had no luck finding any other reviews for the episode, I've hunted through newspaper archives online but a lot of papers don't even allow a full search without paid membership, let alone reading anything. :( GRAPPLE X 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's cool. I would send a message to Hunter Kahn, because I think that he has a subscription to LexisNexis, which has newspapers scanned online. I know he uses it when he's editing and usually has a ton of newspaper sources in his episode articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. When I get back to uni I'll be able to check LexisNexis through the library there, but I have no clue how to get at it without actually being there. GRAPPLE X 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many public libraries have subscriptions to databases. Some universities have library computers which are open to the public as well. As long as you access the databases from a local terminal in the library, those subscriptions should work. I'll do a quick search on my own database service and see what pops up.AstroCog (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Earliest mention of this ep in the press, that I can find, is from a November 5, 1993 USA Today. It's quite a brief note, though, saying "One episode, about a hibernating serial killer who could squeeze through tiny apertures to get its prey, had almost a Clive Barker quality of eeriness." USA Today writer Matt Roush seems to have been a fan. I used to have an excellent book by Phil Farrand, Nitpicker's Guide to X-Files, which had detailed episode analysis. Don't know where the book is now, though. You might try to find it.AstroCog (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. When I get back to uni I'll be able to check LexisNexis through the library there, but I have no clue how to get at it without actually being there. GRAPPLE X 22:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's cool. I would send a message to Hunter Kahn, because I think that he has a subscription to LexisNexis, which has newspapers scanned online. I know he uses it when he's editing and usually has a ton of newspaper sources in his episode articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)