Talk:The X-Files (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that this an old review request - to help the project, I am starting this process now. This is my first Good Article nominee review, so I will probably seek the advice of a mentor before this article's status is finalised. I will try to present my findings without too much delay, and from there any alterations that I deem necessary can be effected or discussed. SuperMarioMan (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   In reviewing the article, I scoured the whole page and dealt with most of the textual issues I came across. There are, however, a few problem sentences where I could not reliably offer alternatives due to my unfamiliarity with the film and its production:

• "The film's tagline and sub-title is Fight the Future, being commonly mistaken and referred to as The X-Files: Fight the Future
  • The second half of this sentence needs some clearing up. If "Fight the Future" is a legitimate subtitle, how could one be "mistaken" by referring to the film by its full name?
• "After five successful seasons, The X-Files would meet its peak during the fifth season."
  • I'm not sure what the "peak" refers to. Is it to do with plotline of the TV series, and the X-Files being closed down at the end of the season? If so, it should be elaborated on.
• "Carter and Frank Spotnitz wrote major parts of the script in Hawaii over the Christmas period."
  • Was this in 1996, if the film began shooting in 1997? This could be made clearer.
• "According to Ryan, they were enabled in securing all key personnel in six weeks."
  • Again, uncertain. A substitute word is needed.
• "While gathering various research materials, they found out that the Earth was once covered with ice and decided to open the film in Texas in 35,000 BC with a Neanderthal taking the lead."
  • "as the first character to appear", perhaps?

1. B. MoS compliance:

• Minor MoS issues (e.g. informal language, misuse of the apostrophe, unnecessary capitalisation) have been resolved.
• Per the lead section guidelines, the lead section of an article should serve as a reflection of the main page content in condensed, summary form. This article's lead sums up the film's basic details (e.g. writers, director) and plotline well, but could be expanded to include a brief overview of its production and a bit more detail on its critical reception (currently, one short sentence). Ideally, as mentioned here, the film's nationality should also be included in the first paragraph. I'm not sure that designating the film as being of dual American/Canadian origin is accurate – the Imdb entry lists "USA" only as the country of origin.
• The "Cast and Characters" list could be improved with information transferred from the "Writing and Casting" section. As a simple "ACTOR as CHARACTER" list, the section appears a little barren, jarring with the Plot (preceding) and Production (following) sections, which are written in prose.

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

• Reference 14: the statement about the 15 "Cream of the Crop" reviewers cannot be verified with the reference as it is, since there currently fewer such reviewers on the page cited, and their average score is not 53%.
• Reference 15: RT Community scores should not be included, as the relevant guideline states: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."
• Reference 28: Amazon is not the best source of information as it is a commercial website. If a DVD release date is being mentioned, the information could easily be found elsewhere.

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• Do you have any sources to corroborate the film's budget and gross revenue? Box Office Mojo should have these.
• Quotations in Production section: here are the examples from the first two subsections:
  • "The nearly completed screenplay was then turned over to Fox where it was "enthusiastically" received."
  • "Once hired, Ryan was allowed to read the script under the "watchful eyes" of the Ten Thirteen Productions staff members."
  • "Both Carter and Spotnitz wanted to make the film "bigger" than the series, so they decided to start and end the film at an "extreme place" and explain aspects of the story arc that the show had not."
  • "Carter had purposely cast virtually unknown actors for the television series, saying the show could only be as "scary as it is believable."
  • "He elaborates, "As soon as you put in an actor whose face is very recognizable, you've got a situation that works against the reality of the show."
  • "The design department had only eight weeks to "find all the locations" and to "conceive the sets"."
• Quotations in the entirety of the article should be directly sourced. However, in the case of the last example especially, they could easily just be paraphrased or have the quotation marks dropped.
• A good standard of one inline citation per paragraph is otherwise maintained in the Production section.

1. C. No original research:

• "Firefighters descend into the hole to rescue him but are presumably lost to the same fate."
  • Describing simply what is seen on screen would be a way to avoid accusations of OR here. So, for example, instead of presuming that the firefighters are dead, you could just say "... but are not seen again".

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

• I know that the "comprehensiveness" of a Featured Article is not the objective here, but two sections, to me, seem a bit sparse.
  • The casting information (see above comment proposing a merge of the two relevant sections) could be expanded. The comment on Landau is brilliant, but did any of the other supporting actors have anything to say about being cast, or are there any sources explaining the filmmakers' reasoning for casting those actors? What about Duchovny and Anderson?
  • Plenty of information is provided about reception/response, but nothing (outside the infobox) about basic release details such as box office revenue, premieres and general release dates. There must surely be information out there that could be added to this article.
• On the positive side, the Production and Reception sections are broad-ranging.

1. B. Focused:

• Good summary style is employed.
• Reference 13 to Rotten Tomatoes' "Cream of the Crop" could be dropped, since it is not directly relevant to the topic.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

• The critical response section (perhaps the most crucial section of the article in terms of ensuring NPOV) takes care to present both positive and negative perspectives on the film, with no undue weight being given to any particular reviewer.

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

• Article history is free of edit wars. Only problems are occasional vandalism, and reverts are not repeated or aggravated.

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

• Two images are used, of which both illustrate the topic well. The film poster image has a thorough fair use rationale while the cast photo is under a free license from Wikimedia Commons.

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Of course, further pertinent images, free or adequately rationaled if non-free, would complement the text, but as the criteria state, "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement."

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It is the structural issues (cast and release sections, mentioned above) that concern me the most at this stage. Otherwise, the only other required changes (e.g. to the prose) are relatively minor. With some work, this article will justifying upgrading to the status of Good Article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As no improvements have been made by the nominator to the article, I suggest that it be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm failing the article as a GA, since the reviewer's comments were not addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)