Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The X-Files task force/A-Class review/Log
Contents
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TBrandley 03:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am re-nominating this for A-Class because I would like to promote it to FA. Please have a look over it and tell me if it needs anything else. Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "a towering foul ball" -> Probably baseball jargon, can we just explain why it's impressive? He hits it far/fast/accurately etc.
- Why is Martin not mentioned at the first instance of his character's name?
- "In the present day" -> it's 1999, not 2024.
- "he purposely plays badly" -> I'd use "deliberately"
- "and puns the phrase, "In the beginning"" -> I've never seen "pun" used as a verb; perhaps "and acts as a pun on the phrase "in the beginning"."?
- "a character whom had appeared" -> I believe this should just be "who"
- I wonder if the block quote might be better put to use as a quote box instead
- When you first mention Mark Snow, note that he's the composer for the series, rather than just this episode
- Ref 13 cites a page range and needs to use "pp.", not "p."
- I believe it was Crisco who pointed it out to me before but I'm not convinced Starpulse is reliable.
- I think that's all I've got. GRAPPLE X 05:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TBrandley 03:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TBrandley 15:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for A-Class because I plan to put it through FAC once I get better writers to go through it. Plus it's my favorite episode. Much like my first FA Terms of Endearment, the episode begins with the death of a baby (I can't fathom how I got into that niche). In addition, the episode is notable for widely being called the scariest episode of the series, and for good reason. It features a clan of incestuous mutants serial killers, plot points revolving around rape, infanticide, and kidnap, features a couple being clubbed to death and two separate impalings. And most lovely of all, it was almost entirely based on true events.
Please, fell free to nitpick. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Intro: "however the investigation uncovers a truth even more sinister." I wouldn't 'tease' the audience, I'd just say what the sinister truth is
- In the pic with Don Knotts and Andy Griffith, I would put the parenthesis before the period.
- Writing: "Wong was fascinated in how the family lived, deciding to base the Peacock family on the Ward brothers, incorporating their unusual lifestyles into the script." -> "Wong was fascinated by how the family lived and decided to base the Peacock family on the Ward brothers and incorporate their unusual lifestyles into the script."
- Filming: "horrifying adult imagery" kind of has a pornographic ring to it. Maybe "horrifying graphic imagery"
- Reviews: Put all letter grades ("A+", "C–") in quotes
- Footnotes: Some of the dates are DD MM YYYY, and others are MM DD, YYYY. I'd pick one and stick with it
That's all I have. Damn, you did some serious work on this!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the prose issues, fixed the date formats. Went with the more annoying DD MM YYYY, because even though it's more awkward it's what I used with Terms of Endearment. Changed the teasing part of the lead (however there really is no nice way to say "they were breeding with their mother..." so I kept it as vague as I reasonably could). Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TRLIJC19 18:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments: I would suggest you gather some interest from WikiProject The X-Files and television members, by leaving notices at the project's talk pages, and leaving review requests to members to get this over one-month nomination going. In any case, here's what I found:
Overall; looks good, but I will take a more through look later. TBrandley 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support for A-Class. TBrandley 17:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Per the review above and having read the article. Bumping this one shortly. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TRLIJC19 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This is not who we are. GRAPPLE X 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is likely going to FAC soon enough I'll offer comments. Just nitpicking suggestions;
- Is it worth mentioning the episode's wider influence on the series? Critics have compared a lot of episodes to "Ice", including "Darkness Falls", "Firewalker", ie "Ice in the forrest", "Ice in a volcano", etc. All those episodes have the whole "nature VS man" theme. Goblins by Charles Grant (on Google books) summarizes this decently enough.
- What about the fact that Carter initially wanted to film the episode at the North Pole but couldn't due to budget limits? (which influenced the production of "Colony")
- According he Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Volume 2, the episode was notable for featuring the first "invertebrate parasite" in the series, beating out the likes of ""The Host" [1995], "Firewalker" [1995], "F. Emasculata" [1995], and "Roadrunners"".
- The production company "had at first planned to portray the worms using snakes wearing latex suits"? What the fuck?
- The image of Anderson has a geocoded location notice tag... thing. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- "Ice" was watched by 6.2 million households in its initial broadcast, and has received positive reviews with critics praising its tense atmosphere." No comma after "broadcast"; comma after "reviews"
- "Morgan was originally inspired to write this episode after reading an article in Science News an excavation in Greenland..." On?
- "...about men in Greenland who dug up something 250,000 years old out of the ice." "Something" is really vague; specify if the sources elaborate.
- "The worms crawling in the host bodies was done..." I think it should be "were", as the subject (worms) is plural
- "Digital worms were employed for scenes such as them swimming in the jars and entering the dog's ear." "Them" sounds funny here; maybe "when they swam".
- "Actor Gillian Anderson stated..." Actress?
The rest looks okay. Glimmer721 talk 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reviews, both of you. Still working on some of these points. GRAPPLE X 11:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per changes. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I was bored I found literally every additional source I could scrimmage up:
- This could also be added. As could this, as we've been using her reviews in quite a few articles (she works for SFScope).
- Reviews for Firewalker and Darkness Falls both bring up positive (though slight) notices for Ice. Zack Handlen wrote that Darkness Falls lacks the "ratcheting paranoia" of Ice, and Zack Handlen brought up that Firewalker "serves as a companion piece to "Ice" from season one, another story focusing on an isolated outpost, extreme temperatures, and internal parasites" but lacks Ice's "intensity, and also its convincing threat". Though the article already references 3 separate AV Club articles.
- Another possibly redundant source; UGO Networks writer Alex Zalben compared it to the Fringe episode What Lies Below, that has a similar plot, commenting that Ice was "one of the best X-Files hours ever, perfectly channeling – but not ripping off – John Carpenter’s The Thing." Further substantiates the "most influential episode ever made" claim, as it was even influencing episodes from other series.
- Some dude from IGN wrote that "I think Ice is one of the best episodes ever, and it was like only the fifth episode." (though it's obviously not "like, the fifth" episode. )
- David Hofstede in 5000 Episodes and No Commercials: The Ultimate Guide to TV Shows On DVD cited the entire episode as one of "great moments" of the first season, simply just calling it "brilliant." The nitpicker's guide for X-philes as usual goes into intricate detail about anal little details here and there, more so than average episodes. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the Fringe bit where the plot has been discussed as influential (as that section grows I'm beginning to doubt it's in the right section though), but the rest seems largely redundant to me, as the article already features a solid heft of reception material. If you feel that any of the sources you've listed should trump what's already there then I'd be happy to swap them out, but I think it might weight the article too heavily in one area to just add without removing others too. GRAPPLE X 04:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TRLIJC19 01:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The episode's teleplay was written by John Shiban and Vince Gilligan, from a story by Frank Spotnitz, and was directed by Kim Manners" -> drop "episode's teleplay" for just "episode"; as it is, the "was directed by" is still applying to the teleplay and not the episode as a whole. It's readily implied when someone else gets a story credit that the "written by" means the script itself.
- Per WP:TVPLOT we could lose about 100 words from the summary; try to look for adjectives or for phrases that could be replaced with briefer ones or single words.
- "what we did comically last season in 'Bad Blood'"." -> double quote marks around "Bad Blood", per MOS, would be an acceptable typographic change.
- In the production heading, there's a few instances of consecutive uses of the same citation; if a sentence has a quote then this is fine but two quote-free sentences in a row can share a cite to neaten things up a little.
- The quotebox and image facing each other under "Research, filming, and effects" should be moved, text shouldn't be squeezed between two floating objects like this (generally it's two images which cause this but the effect is the same). Just move either one or the other down a paragraph or two so they're staggered rather than facing.
- "Bill Millar captured video of Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny in three-dimensional high-definition video: The two actors were scanned with a special laser at Glendale, California and the results were manipulated by a computer" -> use an em dash rather than a colon here. Same applies elsewhere.
- "The idea of alternative realities had been done in previous episode" -> "episode" to "episode", and change "done" to "explored/examined/portrayed", etc
- The second and third paragraphs of "Themes" seem to split in the middle of a train of thought; a paragraph beginning "thus" is generally a bad thing as it hinges on something said previously.
- Happy enough aside from these. I'll give the plot section another reading when it's trimmed to be sure it's okay but otherwise that's all. GRAPPLE X 16:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I cleared everything. Please tell me if I missed anything.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Per the review above, and a thorough reading of the article. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TRLIJC19 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) [2].[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to add the fact that I've converted the commentary refs over to linked and timed refs.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "The episode later won a 2001 Emmy Award for Outstanding Makeup for a Series." -> I know that "2001" pipes to the Emmy show for that year; but it still looks awkward. How about "The episode later won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Makeup for a Series at the 53rd Emmy Awards"? This applies both for the lead and the "Reception" header.
- "In this episode, former abductee Bill Miles' (Zachary Ansley) deceased body is found in the ocean, but is miraculously resurrected. Shortly thereafter, the body of agent Mulder is buried. However, after Miles' body is resurrected, Assistant Director Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) orders Mulder's body to be exhumed. When his body is uncovered, weak vital signs are discovered. Meanwhile, Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) threatens Skinner and tells him that he must kill Scully's unborn child. Eventually, Mulder is returned to life and is reunited with Scully." -> this is a bit lengthy for the lead, I think. It's just the right size for an episode table in a season article (though I think TBrandley's FLC entailed doing those all, still don't really understand the transclusion thing going on there) but a little long for a lead. Maybe removing either the whole Billy Miles thing would work?
- "In addition, the main plot has, thematically, been compared to the resurrection of Jesus." -> "In addition, the episode's plot has been seen as a metaphor for the resurrection of Jesus"; the current version seems a bit too comma-heavy
- "Several months after FBI special agent Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) was abducted by aliens, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), John Doggett (Robert Patrick) and Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) discover several returned alien abductees." -> remove "alien" the second time round, it's clear who the "abductees" were taken by.
- In the "Background" heading, I'd definitely list Roy Thinnes as playing Jeremiah Smith. He's not present here but the section doesn't imply that he is, it's clear it's referring to past episodes (for example, Phoebe Augustine isn't in Episode 2 but her character is relevant to the story so she's mentioned in the "Background".
- "Three months after Scully, Doggett, Skinner, and Kersh" -> Who's Kersh? I mean I know who "Deputy Director Alvin Kersh (James Pickens, Jr.)" is but the casual reader won't.
- I'm not keen on the commas before a quote ("then Mulder asks, "Did anybody miss me?""); it implies an aside when the quote is actually a direct continuation of what's going on.
- Link Sheila Larken
- You use "utilize" a fair bit; try switching one or two to just "use" for a little variety.
- "FBI Building" -> don't pipe this one; just link J. Edgar Hoover Building, perhaps with an aside that it is the FBI headquarters.
- "a mix of various "red goo", that included, among other things, strawberry jam, was placed on Ansley's skin." -> " a mix of "red goo" that included strawberry jam, among other things, was placed on Ansley's skin"
- " in entries like "Audrey Pauley"" -> "in entries such as "Audrey Pauley""
- Don't mix % signs with "percent"; stick with one or the other. I'd say spell it out, probably.
- Given that the Shearman and Pearson book uses European spellings, you might want to paraphrase the "humour" quote so as not to mix spellings. It's not a big issue but it might be less confusing for readers if you phrased it as "noted that the episode's humor and simplicity were "the icing on the cake"."
- "Tom Kessenich, in his book Examination: An Unauthorized Look at Seasons 6–9 of the X-Files criticized the episode for being "wooden and convoluted" and "set the stage for […] the countdown toward the end of Fox Mulder's time on The X-Files"" -> you'd need something before that second quote, perhaps "and felt that it "set the stage..."".
- Support – Per the review above. That said, I'm promoting this one. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by Grapple X 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC) [3].[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments'
- ""The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" earned a Nielsen household rating of 10.1" -> in the lead, I prefer to see these ratings put into context; present it as ten percent of the audience rather than a 10.1 rating
- "Large portions of the episode, were inspired by Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ." -> that comma's wrong and should go
- I'd consider ditching the guest stars in the infobox from "Martin Grey" downwards.
- Plot summary is a bit on the beefy side; I'd like to see it trimmed closer to 500 words per WP:TVPLOT. A quick and easy way to bring this down is to get rid of the loquaciousness used; things like "in effect", "however", "an attractive neighborhood" can stand to be cut back.
- "While executive producer Duchovny was drawn to the fact that Christ's struggle, in the novel was "not only godlike, but also profoundly human."" -> again, that comma between "struggle" and "in the novel" shouldn't be there
- "For instance, Fowley is seen as Kazantzakis' version of Mary Magdalene—in fact, both characters share the same roles in that they "thwart the mission" of the hero." -> ditch "in fact"
- "originally aired on the Fox" -> either fire "network" in there, or remove "the"
- "0.84 million" -> might be better to present this as 840,000 or 840 thousand
- "Great TV 'I Love You's" -> add {{sic}} to this, the apostrophe is erroneous
- "Not all reviews were positive. Paula Vitaris from Cinefantastique gave the episode a more mixed review " -> review... review. Try something else for the second one.
- "Shapiro (2000), pp. 28–29" is cited quite often. Given that it's a range can we split some of the cites to one page only into separate ones?
- That's all from me. GRAPPLE X 00:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I addressed all the issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed the plot some more; beside a little shaving here and there, I removed the stuff about the "touchstone" moment as I felt Fowley's death was a logical end point (sorry Glimmer, spoiler) and the bit about Hosteen being in Scully's flat and then how he wasn't really there (because fuck that guy). It's still a shade over 500 but it's over 100 words closer than it was so I'm happy enough. Given that TBrandley's already supported I'm promoting this now. GRAPPLE X 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I addressed all the issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TBrandley 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [4].[reply]
I am nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets all the criteria. GRAPPLE X 04:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Will add comments later today. Cheers, TBrandley 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Just for consistency, I would add a reference for the guest stars
- I would add publishers for some of the refs, like 23 (Time Inc.), 24 (The Onion), and 25 (Dennis Publishing).
- Support--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was approved by TBrandley 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC) [5].[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going to add some comments here; if another reviewer wants to do likewise we can bump this one up. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think each paragraph of the plot needs to describe it as a "scene" or "sequence"; we know it's a fictional work and even one or two such mentions does the same job as all of these at once.
- switch "whizzes" to something more formal.
- Quote box should be dropped a paragraph or so, it's parallel to the image which is undesirable.
- Images will need alt text for screenreaders.
- If you want to switch to {{sfn}} like some of your FA work I wouldn't say no; up to you.
- Not 100% convinced ref 2 is necessary, I'd still consider the subject itself to be a reliable source for its own length.
- Other than the above I'd be happy to support. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of an A-Class nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in the main page's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not approved by TRLIJC19 15:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC) [6].[reply]
Leave comments here for an A-Class assessment! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.