Talk:Synchrony (The X-Files)

Synchrony (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.

Synchrony (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 4) 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
December 31, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 14, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: The X-Files Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do this review. Doing a first readthrough now; I'll list any action points as I go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough

"who complained with Harry S. Truman about the 1945 atomic bombings of Japan." Should this be "complained to"? Or do you mean that both Oppenheimer and Truman complained about this? (note that this phrase occurs twice)

This still needs to be fixed; I'm not sure the statement that Truman complained about the atomic bombings is accurate. (What's the original language of your source?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken from Gordon's statement on the X-Files book used as a ref, reworded a bit more.

Can you tell me the book's statement here? Your rephrasing still sounds as if Gordon is saying that both Oppenheimer and Truman complained together about the use of the atomic bomb, which doesn't sound quite right to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer complained to Truman about the bombings. Rephrased again. Sorry if it was unclear. igordebraga ≠ 22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's what I figured you meant, just wanted to be sure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*"Gordon and Greenwalt got together in Simi Valley and had difficulties in pitching a good plot, with the one that they worked the most, involving a prisoner that gets free by changing his body with another man, being rejected as Gordon felt was too similar to other episodes written by him" -- This sentence gets rather tangled; perhaps split it into two. It's also unclear how Gordon rejects the pair's own pitch--are they pitching themselves? Maybe reject isn't quite the right word here.

"What if Oppenheimer could go back to the past and 'uninvent' the bomb?"--this quotation needs context. (Such as "The writers wondered,... ")

Characters are inconsistently referred to by first or last name--Jason and Lisa should be consistently referred to by their first names or their last.

"What if Oppenheimer could go back to the past and 'uninvent' the bomb?" --quotation needs citation at end of sentence

~~"useless characters" --quotation needs citation at end of sentence~~

That's it on the first pass. This looks like it's in pretty good shape so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done those, except the quote citation, as those two are backed by the refs at the end of the paragraphs. igordebraga ≠ 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One item still needs attention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.	Article passes; nice work.