Talk:William (The X-Files)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues

General

• No dab links. Great work!
• No dead links. Great work!

Infobox

• As per "Squeeze" article, it should have Season 9 linked, and the List of The X-Files episodes removed.
  •  Done (by reviewer)--TBrandley 03:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• An episode can really "premiered" how about "originally aired". Thanks!
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Unlink United States as the other countries not linked
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• In the lede, Fox network is linked, but in the "Reception" section, only Fox is linked. Please choose only one.
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The story for the episode was developed by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Chris Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz; the teleplay was written by Carter. The episode was directed by Duchovny." A little messy. How about: The teleplay of the episode was written by Chris Carter, from a story by former series star David Duchovny, series creator Carter, and executive producer Frank Spotnitz
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Could "The episode was directed by Duchovny. "William" be merge with the previous sentence
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• I know this might change everything else, but how about "The season centers on FBI special agents John Doggett (Robert Patrick), Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson)", rather than series. Because I see other articles that say it centers on Mulder and Scully
  •  Done Good idea. I rephrased it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode. Owens' character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son". How about: "Chris Owens was asked to return to the series for the episode, whose character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son"
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot

• older social worker should have the actor name besides in brackets
  • I just removed this section as it isn't really necessary.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Mrs. Van De Kamp should have the actor name beside it in brackets as I see actor in the infobox
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Add actor name for Baby Williams
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "an unknown man (Chris Owens watches them." Your missing brackets after Owens
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "X-Filess" To many "s"' should be "X-Files"
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "After being knocked down, pursues his assailant. Doggett draws his gun and commands him to stop. The man turns and slowly steps back towards Doggett with his hands up. Doggett’s expression suggests horror at the man’s face." Could some sentences be merge
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Per MOS:PUNCT, "Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ )." That being said, I see that Doggett’s and man’s use that when they should use '
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "the new one being hidden within the government and the people involved being alien". Awkward, what does that mean?
  • I tried to rephrase it, but the grammar is sound. The new one is in the government and the people in the conspiracy are aliens.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Production

• Unlink executive producer, as it is a common term per WP:OVERLINK
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Owens' character had previously been killed off in the sixth season episode "One Son"." citation/reference needed
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Could you add "It was Carter's X writing credit in the series", etc. Thanks!
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception

• An episode can really "first premiered" how about "originally aired". Thanks!
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• A little picky, but above it uses "received", but below it uses "earned". Please only choose one.
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The episode was viewed by 9.3 viewers" what above it says "viewed by 6.1 million households". Very confused. Is that for the UK, what?
  •  Done Moved things around to clarify.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "aired". Episodes air all the time, how about "originally broadcast, originally aired, first aired in the United Kingdom, etc."
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Above it says television critics, here it is only "critics". Choose one please.
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Other reviews were not as glowing". Glowing shouldn't be used. IMO it does sound like an ad. How about: Other reviews were negative, etc.
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Chris Owens should have an apostrophe.
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• "He did however, praised Duchovny's directing" should be "praise", not "praised"
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• No issues in such a small section.
  • Good work!

References

• Ref. 3: Unlink The X-Files: The Complete Ninth Season as it is already linked in Ref. 1
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Fox should be linked to Fox Broadcasting Company, not "corporation"
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 7: The Hollywood Reporter is missing publisher (Prometheus Global Media)
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 8: Unlink 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment as it is linked above
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 9: Television Without Pity is missing publisher (NBCUniversal)
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 12: "Kessenich, pp. 203–208" is not in the book sources
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 13: Salon Magazine should only be Salon
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ref. 13: Salon is missing publisher (Salon Media Group)
  •  Done--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Link the book references in "Footnotes", to the actual book source below as in Triangle (The X-Files)
  •  Done (by reviewer)--TBrandley 03:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

External links

• Per other articles, it should be "TheXFiles.com", not "XFiles.com"
  • I didn't change this, because the link is to XFiles.com, not TheXFiles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After these are fixed, I'd still recommend a copy-edit for the article, particularly in the "Plot" and "Reception" sections. Other than that, great work! TBrandley 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went through and cleaned up the prose. Honestly, I don't see very many grammar errors though, so I don't think a full ce is necessary, but I could probably get Grapple to look it over if he has time. In the meantime, I've combed through it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe just a quick look. Thanks, TBrandley 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Grapple X has given it a copyedit and I've cut down on some of it. It should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have no desire to start a hatnote edit war on this page. If you disagree with my changes, please feel free to further edit/revert them, but please let's discuss them here as well from now on, to try and reach consensus. My rational for the changes is as follows:

• In my view, mentioning that Baby William is a character in The X-Files is important as this establishes the context for why the footnote is relevant both to the article and potentially to the reader. This is why I added it.
• My original edit ("For the X-Files character...") did not capitalise "The" because this made a straightforward and simple, grammatically coherent hatnote. I did not think it critical to retain the "The" in italics and capitalised, as although normally a show's official name either does or does not include a capitalised article, typically in usage there is no hard-and-fast rule. In that sentence construct, the "the" with lowercase is required for grammar; it does not form part of the title of the show and thus should not be capitalised. If a capitalised "The" is required, the correct form would be "For the The X-Files character..."; the non-capitalised "the" belongs with the word "character", not with "X-files", which is adjectival in this context. I have changes the sentence grammar to allow a capitalised "The" without undue awkwardness. I hope this is acceptable. (This does not prove that it is correct, but my first chosen form exists independently elsewhere on Wikipedia, e.g. the hatnote at Help! (album); I contend that in this context, it is acceptable and even correct not to capitalise the "the".)
• "The X-Files" is the name of a series and thus should be italicised per MOS:ITALICS. In an italicised context, words or phrases that are normally italicised are transposed again into the regular font. This is what should be done here, and I have reinstated it.

I do not claim to be infallible in these regards, and as said above, am ready to have a debate to attempt to reach consensus. Please participate if you disagree at all. Thank you

--MegaSloth (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just note that a link to List of minor The X-Files characters would be better as there are at least four characters in the series named "William". In terms of italics and definite articles, what you have at the minute is fine. GRAPPLE X 16:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I took a quick look and the other three Williams – besides going by the name Bill or Billy – appear to have well-established surnames, which I think means that MOS:DABSUR applies and they do not need disambiguating? --MegaSloth (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say to be safe, go for it. Max (The X-Files) has a hatnote pointing to Max Fenig, after all. I think if we're going to stick a hat note to aid navigation we might want to go the whole hog. How about "For the titular character, see Baby William; for other characters in the series named William, see list of minor The X-Files characters"? GRAPPLE X 19:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we're going off the original topic, but as that appears to be settled I'm happy to run with it. I'm afraid I would disagree. I would say that disambiguating Max Fenig from Max, even in the context of The X-Files, was technically incorrect unless there is some compelling WP:IAR-type reason to vary from the guidelines. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the X-files to comment on the Max/Max Fenig case so I won't pursue that, but it is clear to me that the other Williams, if they were to be referred to by a single name, would in any case be "Bill" or "Billy". This is in addition to MOS:DABSUR which clearly states "Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)" (this is talking about DAB pages but there is no reason to use different criteria for DAB hatnotes). Disambiguating the Bill(y)s from other uses of "William" alone would be both against the disambiguation guidelines and counterproductive. --MegaSloth (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough for this one; though the Max/Max Fenig case makes sense as Max Fenig is a character not only from the series but from that episode itself, I can easily see a reader searching "Max (The X-Files)" and reasonably expecting to see the character (like, for example, searching for "Hamlet" and wanting to see Prince Hamlet rather than The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark). GRAPPLE X 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree on the hatnote for this page. While I'm not completely convinced regarding Max Fenig, your arguments make some sense. I'm not sure your example of Hamlet is a good one; Prince is a title not a first name and to my knowledge Hamlet is given no other name, so there is no choice but to disambiguate him from other "Hamlet"s. Nonetheless, I am content that the hatnote at Max (The X-Files) is at worst harmless and is possibly useful so there's no point spending our energies debating further. Many thanks for spending the time to sort this one out. --MegaSloth (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William (The X-Files). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502025325/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/tv/feature/2002/05/17/x_files/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/tv/feature/2002/05/17/x_files/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)