Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The X-Files/1

The X-Files

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here goes. This was promoted to GA way back in 2006 and it's slipped majorly since then. The numbers refer to sections of WP:WIAGA:

2c. Some issues with original research/weasel words, such as "seen as[citation needed] somewhat similar to that of contemporary TV hit Twin Peaks (in which David Duchovny guest starred as a DEA agent)." and "as many wondered how the show could maintain the dark tone and atmosphere that characterized many of the episodes in the first five seasons.[citation needed]." These have been tagged with {{Fact}} for over a year.
Also, "Whilst a relatively in-the-background type character in the 1st season, the character's role and importance in the storyline would evolve over the next eight seasons, until Skinner became an integral part of the X-Files plot." Dangling modifier alert!
Another {{Fact}} in paragraph 3 of "Early production issues." Lots of unsourced info from there on out.
3a. There's virtually no information on critical reception from reviewers. Isn't that kind of essential to a TV show article?
Way, way, way, way too many unsourced sentences in general. Many of them seem to be additions by fanboys/fangirls who seem to have mistaken this for a fansite.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs some work, of course. Many references lack required information (authors, publishers etc). Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see many valid {{fact}} tags in the article, and many places for more that could/should be added. I see subsections for Legacy and Awards, but not much really on overall Reception. There are some nice boxes for Cast of characters, but I am not seeing much really on the actual initial casting and production process itself. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Something like that is definitely necessary for a GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The need for cites is indisputable, and i don't see much work to fix this yet.Yob Mod 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the above consensus to delist and was intending to do so. However, on looking more closely at the article and rereading the above comments, I believe it would be helpful to future editors to provide more suggestions on improving the article: weasel words, poor prose, missing citations and bibliographic information, and the absence of reception and production sections are certainly issues, but they partially miss the point, in my view.

I would note first (for information) that the original GAN version was no better in terms of citation, reception, trivia, etc. The current version of the article is not substantially changed since the last peer review: as this long diff shows, the main changes have been the removal of images and citations (without removing the cited material) and expansion of the latter part of the article (seasons 7-9, episode types, legacy).

In contrast, the peer review had a different focus: "Wow, this article is huge...It might be best to merge the production details into a separate Production section and move the plot details into a Plot section...Ten Thirteen Productions Consider losing this." and in response "When ready, we can move them [each season] to their own articles, and cut down each season in the main article to a brief summary."

Well the peer review had it right, in my view, but it never happened. The article is poorly organized and has major 3b failings: the material on each season goes into unnecessary detail, which could be moved to spinout articles per WP:Summary style. The Ten Thirteen Productions material is mostly tangential, while the 2008 film gets just four short sentences.

There is plenty of production information and critical reaction in the article, but it is spread all over the place, blended together and mixed in with plot information. Consequently it is virtually impossible to extract any particular information about the series without reading the entire article from start to finish, which takes not far off an hour (I am sympathetic with any reviewer who gave up part way through!). Substantial trimming and restructuring are required to deal with this, not just adding some cites and removing some fanboy material. Geometry guy 19:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]