Talk:The Pine Bluff Variant

The Pine Bluff Variant has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Pine Bluff Variant is part of the The X-Files (season 5) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
October 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Pine Bluff Variant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	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.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	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.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments[edit]

1

questing his beliefs - is this right, or do you mean "questioning his beliefs"
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You still have one occurrence of "questing" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Sorry about that...--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goatee Man or the Goatee Man?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"leaves in a BMW " - Type of car is a little specific, is it really necessary for the plot?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"hands over redacted microfilm." - Is this right, or is it "hands over a redacted microfilm."
I believe it's plural, as film can be a singular word, or a plural word.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he kills the Skin-Headed Man " - Perhaps change to "Bremer kills the Skin-Headed Man"
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bremer's true identity ever explained?
No, not really. I was kind of confused by that too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Mulder Undercover" - Uppercase in the original?
Yeah, it was.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede is really long for an article like this (article is 10,000 characters, roughly; per WP:LEDE it should only have one or two paragraphs.
I tried to cut it down a bit, but its about the same as all the other X-Files articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2

What makes Critical Myth a reliable source?
Keegan is a published television critic, who has written for MediaBlvd Magazine (a Magazine that he is also an assistant editor to, Link). Granted, his website is a little Web 1.0, but he is legitimate. Here's a link about his writing history.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but how is Media Blvd. or TV.com reliable? The TV.com one may even be self published. Has he been published in any mainstream publications? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TV.com, not so much, but I would consider Media Blvd. Magazine reliable. They have a full editorial staff, and have interviewed several very notable individuals, such as Billie Piper, Robert McKay, and others; while not super popular, they seem to at least be notable and reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure on that. The staff page indicates that most of their efforts have been on self-published media, and at the very least the chief editor is not full-time. Perhaps an outside opinion? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards MediaBlvd being reliable since their interviews have been cited by print media and they seem to have a bit of an editorial staff, I can't make a solid case for it, but I'd lean in that direction. I probably wouldn't see Keegan's site as one though. _{Note: Crisco asked me to weigh in.} Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks Mark. I guess I could accept the source here, but expect it to be questioned again at FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3

Any commentary on the DVD's commentary track?
Unfortunately no. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Star Tribune on Highbeam, this episode and "The Post-Modern Prometheus" have commentary tracks (on The X-Files: The Complete Fifth Season. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm stupid. I'm so used to looking for special effects shorts, et al, I totally forgot about the commentary of the actual episode. I'll get right on that...--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It's not a prerequisite for GA status, so I'll pass now. Be sure to run through it before FA though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

Okay, holding — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I believe I've fixed or addressed all the issues. Thank you for reviewing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, everything important is done but I have a comment regarding the DVD (see above) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. If you're feeling celebratory, perhaps you could help review another article (there is a backlog, after all) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filming[edit]

This paragraph was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=prev&oldid=507243143 but appears to have been mangled by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=507248492&oldid=507243266 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=507622555&oldid=507622045

Fixed, along with minor grammatical from original version. I would have said "fake corpses" rather than "faux" is more natural too. 86.26.14.250 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]