Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

X-Cops (The X-Files)

X-Cops (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is The X-Files meets COPS episode of the series, and its particularly well-loved by the fanbase. I feel that this episode able to both balance the humor and scariness, both of which were facets that The X-Files was famous for. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. The references have been combed through to meet MoS, the prose is good and has been looked over, and the sections are in-depth. A year ago, it passed GA review, and just recently, it was pretty heavily critiqued, reviewed, and copy-edited by Sarastro1. Any comments would probably inevitably make this article better, but I feel it is ready.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Originally aired by the Fox network on February 20, 2000, "X-Cops" received a Nielsen rating of 9.7 and was seen by 16.56 million viewers."—Perhaps insert "in the US" after "aired", which would clarify the stats?

  Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the two" might be smoother as "they", if you think that works.

  I switched it in some places. It felt funny in others.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "wherein" is a bit olde worlde; what about "in which", or just "where".

  Changed to "where".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "green-light" probably doesn't need the hyphen (unless it's a double adjective, "green-light" threshold).

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "as well as its presentation as if it were"—three × "as". I can't think of an alternative wording at the moment.

  I tried to reword this, how does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nested phrase ... commas on both sides: "When the agents track down Chantara, whose face is pixelated she claims that her ..."

  I believe I fixed this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the show fresh [...] I think [Carter] appreciates"—does MOS allow us to dump the square brackets around ellipsis points? I'm sure it does. I never use them because they seem clunky; especially here next to a good use of square brackets around "Carter".

  I changed them to just bare ellipsis points, sans that brackets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Utilized—I never know why "used" isn't good enough (memo to scientists and engineers).

  "Used" is used right before the word, but I changed it to read: "Gilligan and the writing staff applied methods previously used..."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked further than "Conception and writing". My feeling is that this has legs as a nom, but needs some close auditing for tiddleys, preferably by someone who's fresh to it. Tony (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over this. I believe I've addressed your concerns. Do you have any idea about who I could approach to look over it?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• My only concern is the mention of the cancellation in the lead. There it states that the crew felt the show would be cancelled, but in the production section it says that the fans/critics did (and that Carter felt it had run its course). Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I changed it so that the lede reads "when the crew felt that the show was nearing its end with the conclusion of the seventh season". While critics felt that it would be cancelled, most of the production team also thought the show would end at the conclusion of season 7.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's great. Happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support another winner from a truly passionate project. igordebraga ≠ 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Should the A-class review be closed first?
• Nielsen rating is linked twice in the "Broadcast and reception" section.

  Whoops! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• ""X-Cops" serves as a fictional crossover with Cops and is the only X-Files episode, after the sixth season's "Triangle,"..." Well then, it's not the only episode.

  Fixed. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• " Gilligan was given the green light..." Perhaps link green-light? (It is linked in production.)

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• "analyzed for its use of postmodernism and its presentation as if it were reality television." Kind of confusing. Perhaps "and its presentation as reality television"? Or are the postmodernism and presentation related? If not, then maybe the "reality television" aspect of the sentence could be likened to realism as it is in "Themes".

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Having never really watched Cops, I thought Wetzel was a main character on that show before I saw the actor in parentheses. I'm not sure if this could be clarified anywhere (in production?) that the crossover does not involve any of the people from Cops.

  I moved some stuff around under "filming" to explain that only the camera and sound guys were from the actual series.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Vince Gilligan, who wrote "X-Cops", was inspired by Cops, which he describes as a "great slice of Americana." I'd rearrange this so the two instances of Cops don't appear so close to each other.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Broadcast and reception: link New York (city or state?)?

  Reworded to add author and remove "New Yokr".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the reception section should distinguish which reviews are retrospective and which were contemporary, or at least provide dates from the reviews of The A.V. Club, etc (especially as that makes a comparison to House).

  I divided it into "initial" and "contemporary" paragraphs, with the finale one being an accolade-type section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• What was Vitaris' critique of the episode/what did she find wrong with it? And why CFQ rather than Cinefantastique?

  I just removed this, since -- believe it or not -- she pertty much praises the episode but then gives it a stinky score. It's CFQ because the magazine had changed its name around that time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns are minor. This article has improved quite a bit since I reviewed it for GA. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good; I especially like what you did with the reception section. What do you think about closing the A-class review? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files A-Class Review portal has been dormant for such a long time. I'll just do it myself, and if I get yelled at, whatevs.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a rudimentary job, but none of the delegates have responded to me. What say you now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. FA trumps A. I support. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

Saw your message on Glimmer's talkpage and thought I'd add my two cents here. Overall a well-written, well-researched article; have only found a few nitpicks:

• "Directed by Michael Watkins and written by Vince Gilligan, the installment serves as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story, a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files." -- would prefer if you replaced the final comma with a dash ("...as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story – a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files.")

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The episode received positive reviews from critics..." -- perhaps change received to earned, to avoid repetition with the previous sentence

  Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "...and is one of only two X-Files episode..." -- episode -> episodes

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a relevant wikilink for Sheriff's deputies?Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, there's only a mention of deputies in the sheriff article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio check

I ran the Duplicate Detector software on several of the links I can access and didn't find any issues (see the links below):

• Comparing the article with this: [2]
• And this as well: [3]
• And lastly this: [4]

Assuming good faith on the book sources. In short, I see no issues with copyvio. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over those. I appreciate the feedback/comments!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! I am happy to support this one for promotion. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 05:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC 2.0). Sources and authors provided. Just one issue:

• File:X-cops.png - Please check, if a lower resolution would still show all necessary details and replace the fair-use image with a lower resolution, if possible ("minimal usage"). I won't count every single pixel, but with 350,000 the image is well above the recommended image size of 100,000. Aside from that fair-use is OK (tweaked FUR a bit more). GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking things over. How does the image size/resolution look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Looks fine now, thanks - all OK (have requested deletion of old image with "subst:furd"). GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Conception and writing: Period needed at the end of the section's first paragraph.
• Filming and post-production: "in addition to the shots caught by the usual camera operators The X-Files." Another word is clearly needed after "operators".
• The "in order" in the last sentence of the section is extraneous and can safely be removed to make the writing tighter, without affecting the meaning. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I believe I have addressed them!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article seemed solid before, and with the fixes I think it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review

• No glaring formatting problems (tweaked a few minor issues).
• Sources appear reliable.
• One minor problem: The links in #1 and #11 to the Wiki-articles of season 7 and 6 look out of place (and similar labels are later used for external links). Both seasons are already linked in the article - if needed, the links should be put in a proper "See also" section. GermanJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  OK, I just removed the links. How do they look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  Looks fine now, thanks. I know, that other episode articles of the series handle it similarly, but it's not the best way to guide the reader to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.