Talk:The X-Files Mythology, Volume 3 – Colonization/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Overall

We have one dablink
No ext. links issues.

Lead

Lead is pretty well, but second paragraph may be too long; consider splitting into two.

—Hahc 21 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I split the second into two and beefed the last one up a bit. I feel the prose of the first sentence is a little clunky, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I don't fell that:

"Volume 3 of The X-Files Mythology collection is a DVD release containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."

could be a correct introduction. Maybe:

"The X-Files Mythology - Volume 3 is the third released DVD collection containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."

can do it better. —Hahc 21 04:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fixed. —Hahc 21 16:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot, Background, Reception, Episodes

Those sections are Ok. I went and made some minor edits to polish the text and remove redundancies, double wording, etc.

Special features

This section needs a ref. Maybe the lines notes from the DVD? IDK.

Footnotes, External links

Good.

Please add the ref on special features (or answer with the reason why its needless) to finish the review and pass the article. —Hahc 21 20:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I went and added a DVD citation for the special features. How's that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I enjoyed reading the article. It's well written, broad and focused, properly referenced with inline citations, it meets all MoS guides included on GAC, no edit wars on it, no original research (from what I can verify), it's properly illustrated with images (because they exist). So, passed XD —Hahc 21 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

—Hahc 21 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]