This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The X-Files, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The X-Files franchise on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Given that the title in all official media (DVD releases, those official series guides, etc) is "all things" and not "All Things", I'd suggest a page move to "all things". If the wiki software won't allow the lower case "a" then correct that with the displaytitle template (the one used to italicise The X-Files). When that's fixed there'll be no need for the aside in the lead mentioning the casing, just introduce it as ""all things" is the seventeenth episode..."; and refer to it with the lower case title throughout.
Speaking of which, "seventeenth", not 17th. Straight numbers can be numerals when they're over ten, but when counting, ordinals are better in words. I'm also not sure we need to know it's the 156th episode overall—that kind of thing is useful for "Unusual Suspects" (the 100th) or "This Is Not Happening" (200th), but arbitrary numbers like 156 seem a bit needless.
Ref 3 (audio commentary) should use the |location= field to note which release it's on (I assume the seventh season box set?). I'm not sure it should use the Surname, Forename order either; could be wrong on that though.
Not familiar with DigitallyObsessed, what's their editorial policy like?
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Seems alright. Was there any meat in that interview I linked to you? It might not be a bad idea to add it as a source even if it's largely duplicative of other sources, as the audio commentary has a lot of cites and if you could split that between two sources it would look a little better.
Is "Scully's Theme" the one with "we are here" chanted in it? If so, there's some information about Snow writing it in the season 8 documentary on that DVD set if you have it.
Images seem alright on their own, but given that Anderson is the sole subject of both, I'd suggest either a different screencap (maybe the dripping water?) or using a different free file instead of the Anderson one (maybe Moby?).
Pass or Fail:
There's a few issues to be seen here. I haven't combed the article through too thouroughly but I'm in a bit of a rush today so I'll return to it tomorrow if I get a chance. Still some stuff there to work with, though. GRAPPLEX 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I got the name and the citation info fixed. I'll try to get a better pic (that one was the one that was on the page before I started to spiff it up). As for Digitally Obsessed, it's a DVD Talk-esque site that, for lack of a better word, "hires" people to review. Here's their reviewer application. Not anyone can be a reviewer, and the stuff that is published is peer-reviewed and edited.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I spiffed this page up a bit more. Changed the screenshot, added a pic of Moby and new quote, and significantly expanded the "Music and effects" heading. Hope all is taken care of now.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me, I'm happy to pass it. Well done! GRAPPLEX 16:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I've given the lead a bit of a copy-edit so far. I'll see what I can do over the next few weeks, but I'm a bit pressed for time on and off wiki. Just one question so far: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"This meeting forces her to look at the life she did not choose and make choices about the future.": Do we really need this in the lead? If so, is there a better way that we can phrase it? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking time to look at this! I just removed it. You're right, it's poorly written and not needed.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The narrative of the plot section is a little confusing. Which part is a flashback? All of it, or just where Scully met Waterston?
Yeah, the whole episode takes place in a flashback. The bit at the front takes place in the "future" so to speak.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We imply that Waterston is ill, but this is never stated in the plot section.
I've done some pretty heavy trimming and reworking of that section. Feel free to revert anything you don't like, or where I've cut too much. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Manners helped Anderson by giving her directing homework": Can we phrase this more formally than "homework"? Also, this appears unreferenced. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"McKenna notes that Scully's shift in perspective deliberately mirrors the shift in American pragmatism, a beliefs that views reality as ever-changing.": Something a bit off here. Should it be "belief" singular? But I wonder if a belief can view anything at all. Maybe reword a little.
"Mixing the two, Scully evolves from a mere skeptic who demands proof to prove a truth, to an empiricist who wants proof but is open to other perspectives": And this is a bit vague an woolly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Themes section is a bit heavy going. It seems quite dependent on one source, and to me it looks to be stretching its reasoning quite thinly. I really wonder if this one episode warrants such heavy analysis. But that's just my view, and nothing necessarily needs doing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Final two points, returning to the lead:
"Fans of the show judged "all things" more favorably.": This doesn't really come across in the article apart from the "calls and letters". I don't think that's strong enough to say this in the lead. The critics seemed to hate it!
"The cast and crew helped Anderson adjust to directing and were happy with the finished product, as well as her directing style.": The opinion of the cast and crew does not really come across in the article either, except in a fairly vague way.
Otherwise, I think I'm finished for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)