Talk:All things

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   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.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Name aside, seems fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   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?

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   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.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Not a problem.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

   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?).

7. Overall:

   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. GRAPPLE X 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! GRAPPLE X 16:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Directing section

Under the directing section is the following sentence:

"Production designer Corey Kaplan made that the episode featured a Buddhist temple at Anderson's request and casting director Rick Millikan helped Anderson pick actors and actresses for her episode."

Anyone have an idea what that first part about Kaplan is supposed to say? Soundsaint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments for A-Class assessment

Going to add some comments here; if another reviewer wants to do likewise we can bump this one up. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think each paragraph of the plot needs to describe it as a "scene" or "sequence"; we know it's a fictional work and even one or two such mentions does the same job as all of these at once.

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• switch "whizzes" to something more formal.

  Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quote box should be dropped a paragraph or so, it's parallel to the image which is undesirable.

  Moved, although I might move it again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Images will need alt text for screenreaders.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to switch to {{sfn}} like some of your FA work I wouldn't say no; up to you.

  I'll get that in a bit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not 100% convinced ref 2 is necessary, I'd still consider the subject itself to be a reliable source for its own length.

  Yeah, I think it's redundant too, but I added it just in case.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Other than the above I'd be happy to support. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll add comments. TBrandley 21:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Update; please comment or reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject The X-Files A-Class review/All things/archive1. Thank you. TBrandley 03:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Informal review

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.

  Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Would it be relevant to link to the Tintin story "Les Bijoux de la Castafiore" ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Castafiore_Emerald ) ?

Reading the "all things" article today, I noticed a similarity to the Tintin story by Hergé: they both explore the boundaries of the paradigm that they themselves have defined. It also appears (I've never watched "all things") that there is an eerie, "unreal" atmosphere to both works. This atmosphere would be more a surprise to the standard consumer of those paradigms than a David Lynch product would be to his audience. David Lynch's audience expects eerie, unreal atmospheres to be the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim1958 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)