Talk:Deep Throat (The X-Files)

Deep Throat (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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Deep Throat was inspired by Deep Throat?

Television: The X-Files Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as High-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

A summary of this article appears in List of The X-Files characters.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 07:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA. It may take me up to a week to finish (but I doubt it'll take that long because it's such a short article). Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Fine except see Comments below for some minor points.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are OK, no OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No problems here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV, ~~assuming you could find no neutral or negative reviews of the Deep Throat character (see Comments below).~~
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image has FUR and proper caption.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

"Deep Throat felt that the truth the Syndicate kept secret from the public needed to be known, and believed Mulder to be the one person capable of doing so." Capable of doing what?
- Reworded, meant to imply he was capable of exposing the truth. Now reads "Deep Throat felt that the truth the Syndicate kept secret from the public needed to be known, and believed Mulder to be the one person capable of exposing this knowledge". GRAPPLE X 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, but I guess the reception about Deep Throat has all been positive? There weren't any instances anywhere of neutral or negative opinions about the character?
- That's really all I could find. A lot of the material out there is basically plot rehashing ("Deep Throat is the guy who did X", rather than any real opinions), but I guess I could include a bit from Entertainment Weekly's review of "Ghost in the Machine", which called his appearance in the episode "gratuitous", if that seems relevant enough. I've stuck that in, if it seems a bit tangential then feel free to remove it. GRAPPLE X 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to seeing "p.37" without a space but I see it's the same on all your other X-Files GAs. In Wikipedia:Citing sources all the examples include a space after the "p." Also, why would "No." have a space but not "p."? But if you feel very strongly you want to keep it as it is, for consistency with your other GAs ... I would at least be willing to hear what you have to say.
- I didn't really assume there was a hard and fast rule about it, but I can easily add the spaces. Have done so now. GRAPPLE X 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For such a short article I feel that possibly wiki-linking names in the lead and then so shortly after in the Conceptual History may be excessive. But if that's your style, I won't strongly object.
- I see what you mean. I'm hoping that there'll be some more information coming to light for the article (I know there's a documentary on a box set I haven't seen, which might prove useful, and if that third movie ever gets off the ground, there'll be a spate of published articles overviewing the series in the same manner as happened in 2008 for the second film. So the article could easily grow, but if you think the non-lead links could do with being removed then that's fair enough. GRAPPLE X 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this article is 99% there, but I'm putting the review On Hold until the minor issues above are addressed. Moisejp (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered everything raised, but let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks for taking the time to review this. GRAPPLE X 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm glad you could find at least one negative bit to say (the "gratuitous" thing) in Reception. I was really torn about whether to remove the wiki-links in Conceptual history. I do feel it's acceptable to have a wiki-link repeated once from the lead—but this article is so short and they come so soon after. But anyway, I left them in for now. I hope you will be able to add more to the article—it's very interesting. I am happy to pass it. Great work! Moisejp (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]