Talk:Trevor (The X-Files)

Trevor (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.

Trevor (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 6) 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
April 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 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:

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[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I never understood why I didn't like this one. Larry Zito walks through walls, and it still doesn't work for me. :(

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"The episode was originally supposed to be set in Oklahoma]] ," -> Is Oklahoma meant to be linked here or not? The comma needs to come directly after the word either way.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
The usual set of sources, so there's nothing wrong here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Seems good. Anything in the Examinations book for this one?

Got it!

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Not a problem.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Grand.
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:
I'm not sold on the worth of that screenshot; I'd consider that maybe something showing the special effects work would be better suited as it's discussed in both the production and reception sections, and is therefore more relevant to the article. I'm also genuinely surprised we don't have any free images of John Diehl, given that the man is in just about everything. Ah well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just want to stick this on hold to see about the image, but apart from that we're looking good to go here. GRAPPLE X 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went with a pic of the guy with his face burnt off, since Cinefantastique praised it in a review. I believe that's all.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days. Ready to pass. Well done! GRAPPLE X 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]