Talk:Emma Hollis

Emma Hollis 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
April 16, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: The X-Files High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force.

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

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. I am a little questioning of the character's notability, but not enough to tag / AFD it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

"Hollis is a young special agent within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During the show's final year, she was partnered with offender profiler Frank Black (Lance Henriksen). The character of Hollis was portrayed by Canadian actor Klea Scott, who joined Millennium in its final season." -- Perhaps make it clear immediately that the character was introduced in the final season.
"written off as the hallucinations of Henriksen's character Frank Black" - We learn that Henriksen played Black in the above section. Trim, perhaps?

2

Added a CN tag after a direct quote

Thanks for looking over this one for me. If you're concerned about notability I could add a few extra secondary sources to help establish that. Several of them don't really add additional material, but I could double up some of the refs to help to establish a wider level of critical recognition if you think that would be useful. I think I've address all of your concerns specifically listed, let me know if there's anything else you feel could be amended. GRAPPLE X 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate that. That's the only thing. I made several changes on my own; you may want to check those, as some were a little extensive. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a few additional mentions combing through Highbeam, so I felt they'd be more useful than duplicate info. Let me know if more would still be necessary. GRAPPLE X 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good enough for more. Passing Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]