Talk:Agua Mala

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

There's something about this episode that never sat well with me. I think it suffers from the production move, as there's a sense of cleanness to the production that would have been that little bit murkier or grittier beforehand. Plus, filming a storm in Vancouver would just have been so much easier.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   ""Agua Mala" was written by David Amann and was his second story for The X-Files" (in the lead)-> Already mentioned before that it was written by Amann, so here we can just jump right into saying ""Agua Mala" was Amann's second story..."
   Plot should introduce the cast (it serves to give them a place in the article body to reflect their introduction in the lead), so definitely include Duchovy, Anderson and McGavin.
   The whole phrase "Breakers Condominiums" should not be a link to "condominium", as it suggests that the building is a real one. Just wikilink the actual word if you want to retain the link, having it as "Breakers Condominiums".
   In the writing section, when you mention that this is Amann's second script, mention his first ("Terms of Endearment").
   When you quote Anderson saying "like we were back in Vancouver" it might be worth sticking in a mention that seasons one to five were filmed there. pp. 18–19 of the Meisler book you're using for this article can be used to cite this as it discusses the move to LA.
   "Condo" is a slang term. I'd suggest "apartment" as it reads better than the full "condominium".
   "a stylistic approach that many likened to filming in Vancouver" -> I only see the comparison from Anderson, so specify her instead of "many".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Generally fine, just another bit of consecutive ref folding needing done (refs 2 and 3 seems to be the ones to look at).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Not too bad but there's stuff I would expect to see here that isn't. Given how important The Night Stalker was to the creation of The X-Files, having McGavin appear is worth mentioning. The X-Files (season 1) and The Host (The X-Files) both have some information on McGavin, The Night Stalker and The X-Files that could be used here. It also wouldn't hurt to mention the use of Dales as a character under the production heading, as all three of his appearances can cleanly be cited to the season guides (Meisler and Shapiro), instead of messy episode cites. Perhaps just mention that it's the second of three appearances, and that McGavin would be replaced by M. Emmet Walsh next time.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Grand.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems fine.

6. 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:

   File:Agua mala x files.jpg is used appropriately, but the information used in the article, especially in its caption, could be added to the image page to strengthen its FUR.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few things needing seen to here. Going to stick this on hold for the time being. GRAPPLE X 03:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

   OK, I believe I've addressed all the issues.--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

   Looks good to me. Well done. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)