Talk:Fallen Angel (The X-Files)

Untitled

My god this is a poorly written article.

- Oh yes, you're quite right. But if you have a problem, feel free to fix it. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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.	issue resolved. (Avoid using the word several, it is vague. Maybe use the word some, but don't over use the word.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All numbers under 10 must be spelled out, I corrected this for you. All units should have a non breaking space ( ) between the number and the unit. I correct this for you.
	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).	issue resolved. (I'm a bit confused with the premiere date. The lead and info box say November 19, 1993, but the Broadcast and reception section says September 17, 1993. Can you provide a source and inline citation for this? This is because, the date is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else except the infobox which has no inline citation. Is there a source to prove who wrote and directed the episode?)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	issue resolved. (Could you possibly expand the Broadcast and reception section? It seems quite short and I think that more information could be added.)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y Pass

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've amended the date inconsistency, it's obviously a result of me copying the format I've been using for these articles without changing the details. It's sourced from the same book and page as the Nielson ratings, but there's another source used in between those, so I added it the second time for clarity. If that's too much then it can be removed again. I've added a line about the episode's credits and cited it, and clarified the occurrences of the word 'several' a little better. I've also expanded the last section a little, but ultimately not by much - if I can turn up more sources I could expand it properly but three RS-sourced reviews is all I've managed to find. I'm waiting on a book arriving in the post that might have something about the crew's feelings towards the episodes in it, but that would probably only add perhaps a few sentences in total to it. If you want to keep the article on hold a little longer while I wait on that arriving, then that would be fine. Thanks again for your time. GRAPPLE X 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)