Talk:Sleepless (The X-Files)

Sleepless (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.

Sleepless (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 2) 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
December 2, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
October 3, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Mid-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've previously reviewed Jeffrey Spender and as there is a rather large backlog under Film and Television I thought I'd help out and review some more.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

Second Paragraph "The episode centers around Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and his his new partner Krycek" Done
Second Paragraph "syndication ratings" is red-linked Done
Second Paragraph "Although the episode earned a decent" earned a Decent? more Neutral wording is needed. Done
Third Paragraph could do with a rewrite, not good language for an encyclopaedic article. Maybe move the insomnia reference to the first paragraph. Done

"The episode Howard Gordon" that's not quite what you mean. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Overview

DoneGrissom and Girardi are both Dr.'s and should always be referred to as such throughout. First Paragraph could really do with a rewrite, but in order:

DoneFirst sentence "includes Grissom's 911 call." Who's Grissom, do we know him from previous episodes?

The introductory sentences discussing Grissom's death were deleted at some point during the article's history. These have been restored by me, which should hopefully address this item. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneFourth sentence "Mulder heads to the Grissom Sleep Disorder Center" Is the building really named after the character, or does Grissom work there? or is he a patient?

Grissom was the founder. Yes, it was named after him. Don't see an edit as necessary for this one, let me know if you disagree. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:48, 27 November :::

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneFifth sentence "Quantico" should probably be wikilinked for all the people who might not be familiar about American law enforcement.
DoneFifth sentence "no signs of a fire, but his body believed it was burning." seriously needs a rewrite, "his body believed" but the victim didn't believe? as he was supposedly burning.

That is literally how Scully describes it in the episode. I have made a slight revision to the text which should hopefully clarify that the statement was Scully's theory, and not literal. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneFourth Paragraph "Mulder sees Cole there who shoots Girardi, but it is actually all in his head" Who shot who? whose head was it all in?

It was in Mulder's head. I have slightly revised the language to add this clarification. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

But it's still not quite clear who shot who, did Cole shot Girardi? Mulder shot Girardi? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Quiddity99 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

DoneFourth Paragraph "about to show him a similar fate as the others." what others? the experimenters? the experimentees? the FBI agents?

I have revised the wording to state "similar fate as his other victims" which should hopefully resolve any confusion here. Quiddity99 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneFourth Paragraph "find Girardi there wounded" Find Girardi wounded.

Production

DoneFirst Paragraph "based on insomnia he was suffering at the time" needs a CITE.

But it is cited?

Cite added. It was from the same source as later in that paragraph, the official guide to the X-Files book. Quiddity99 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done First Paragraph "penned down" I very much doubt that the actually hand wrote the script, written or wrote should be used.
Done First Paragraph "sleep is where demons is released in our dreams." is a direct quote and needs a CITE.

But it is cited?

I believe this is from the video commentary cited later in the paragraph, but TIAYN would have to confirm. If thats the case, this is as simple as adding the reference behind that sentence as well and either one of us could handle it. Quiddity99 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

DoneSecond Paragraph "being that he" rewrite please.
Done Second Paragraph "Gender Bender" is incorrectly linked
Done Second Paragraph ""was a [...] strong choice for a fresh-out-of-Quantico FBI agent" is a direct quote and needs a CITE.

But it is cited?

I believe this is from the video commentary cited later in the paragraph, but TIAYN would have to confirm. If thats the case, this is as simple as adding the reference behind that sentence as well and either one of us could handle it. Quiddity99 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Reception

DoneThe first sentence and the fifth sentence both need CITEs.

But they are? --TIAYN (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added. Should be all set. Quiddity99 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Apart from those mentioned above the article is well referenced. However there are four minor faults;

Done first, the "language=" parameter only needs to be used if the book is not written in English, this is the English Wikipedia, it's assumed all CITEs are in English.

If the book is written in English then the "language=" parameter can be removed, if it not written in English change the "language=" parameter to the non-English language. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Second, the Critical Myth cite has the title is "quotation marks" which aren't needed as they are automatically added.

Done Third, the use of the "author=" parameter is inconsistent, some feature the <surname> <comma> <space> <first name> whilst other have <surname> <comma> <first name>. <comma> <space> is much more readable, though personally I use the parameters "first1= |last1=".

Done Fourth ref three, six and seven are identical to ref one and should be included in that.

Ref one and three can probably also be merged.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Thanks for the review. I can try working on fixing these later tonight or tomorrow if TIAYN doesn't beat me too it. :P Quiddity99 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Quiddity99[reply]