Talk:Conduit (The X-Files)

Conduit (The X-Files) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Conduit (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 18, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
January 17, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conduit (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"which would go on become" go on to become
"find that her younger brother" Needs clarification as to whose younger brother this refers to.
"similarities to his own childhood" Childhood experience?
"and has not been seen since" never to be seen again or somesuch? Seems a little disjointed.
Lake Okobogee links to a disambig page, should be: East Okoboji Lake
I think zeroes is more common that zeros and Webster yields Zeroes as well...
"episode they wrote" Space after the dot between the ref. Needs removal.
"reestablished" re-est
"with the episode being describing it as" with the episode being described as?

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): --> (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): -->
A few MoS and prose issues, nothing too serious.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
Perfic'.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): (focused):
Perfic'.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Perfic'
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Perfic'.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Perfic'
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I have addressed the points you've raised, taking your suggestions in all cases but the fourth, where I instead just removed the disjointed-sounding clause. GRAPPLE X 15:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Good show. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! GRAPPLE X 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]