Talk:Per Manum

Per Manum 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.

Per Manum is part of the The X-Files (season 8) series, a good topic. It is also part of the Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 4 series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
September 8, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the writer of The X-Files episode "Per Manum" has described it as being about "the way you perceive connections between people"?
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 articles
???	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 High-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Albacore (talk · contribs) 03:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Review:[reply]

First, Per Manum (The X-Files) should redirect to this page
- Done. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by Frank Spotnitz and series creator Chris Carter, and directed by Kim Manners. The episode helps to explore the series' overarching mythology. Combine the two sentences; something like: "Written by Frank Spotnitz and series creator Chris Carter, and directed by Kim Manners, the episode helps to explore the series' overarching mythology."
- Done. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delink the names of the actors in the lead since they're linked in the "plot" section.
- Done. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FBI special agents John Doggett (Robert Patrick) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) meet Duffy Haskell why not mention who plays Haskell?
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overhearing a pregnant woman, Mrs Hendershot why not mention who plays Hendershot since she seems important to the plot?
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
believing that Rohrer is a CIA agent. you link FBI so why not CIA?
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Scully from the infobox
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duffy Haskel in this episode, would return would return->> returned
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are driven away, but Hendershot enters labour. Unclear who "they" are hear: the marines or the group
- Done. GRAPPLE X 15:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps link "In vitro fertilisation" , and do italicize "in vitro"
- Done.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Broadcast and reception section you have three "the episode"s in a row to begin sentences in the first paragraph; a reword would be nice.
- Done, see below--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12, the date should be formatted as the other dates are
- Done, these two were my fault...--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more reviews you could add or find?
- I added a (pretty scathing) review from Cinefantastique.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could respond to each comment individually that would be great. I'll re-look the article when these are addressed. Albacore (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reread and passed. Albacore (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]