# Talk:Little Green Men (The X-Files)

Image:Little Green Men 2x01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a request (kind of, actually, though not really) but more of a thanks to the one(s) who wrote the Plot summary for this and other X-files related articles.
I often read about movies that people tell me about, and when I go to watch them, I realise that my experience has been ruined by reading the plot summaries here on Wikipedia.
Unlike these "regular" articles, the X-files plot summaries seem to be less spoiling as it doesn't really reveal any important plot values.
Graditude from my behalf.
And a minor request; could we keep it so in the future? Or perhaps have two plot summaries; one visible not spoiling the plot for the reader/viewer, and perhaps a dropdown section with a full plot-spoiling summary.
Just a thought - and again, thank you.
80.62.83.195 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little Green Men (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Will review soon. Ruby 2010/2013 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. See comments below:


### Comments
The rationale for File:Little Green Men (X-Files).jpg is weak ("To illustrate a poignant scene in the episode (infobox). Also, the make-up receives critical commetnary in the article."). I don't see any mention of this make-up in the critical commentary section.
"The episode's prologue, Fox Mulder narrates a history of NASA's Voyager program and the now-defunct High Resolution Microwave Survey, which sought to contact extraterrestrial life in outer space." Fragmented sentence
The "closure of the X-Files" should provide the same wikilink in the lead and plot section
Plot is a bit on the long side. Is there anything that can be taken out/shortened?
"...taking the a printout of the number..."]
Citations in plot sections aren't needed, as the episode itself is assumed to be the reference
"This episode was made for David Duchovny—his version of "Beyond the Sea"—that would make Mulder question himself and his beliefs.[3]" This could be written better- I'm not entirely sure what is being said
Identify who Chris Carter is in production section
No mention of writing, directing credits in production section? Everything in the lead should be cited below
"...who wrote many episodes of the The Twilight Zone...."
"Matheson was also originally the character who was to recite the opening monologue about Voyager." Not quite sure what this sentence means (this may be b/c of the random mention of Voyager).
"The episode generally positive praise from critics" Missing word
The critical commentary section should be expanded (one or two more reviews)
"...The X-Files exploited a simple truth: we all want to believe..." Italicize any mentions of The X-Files
You say "Senator Matheson's claim that terrestrial radio signals will travel for millions of years has recently been called into question. Although radio waves emitted from earth will never truly fade completely away, they will attenuate until they are unrecognizable after several hundred lightyears.[8] " But, I don't see any mention of The X-Files in this article. It may constitute original research. Also, what makes that site a reliable source?
This article should have been gone through with a fine-toothed comb before nomination, as I found many small mistakes. Other issues can also be seen above. I'll place the review on hold for seven days. Please respond on this page when you have completed your fixes or if you have any questions. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 22:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I've gotten most of the prose errors fixed. Sorry about all of those! I've re-edited and added stuff, and removed any original research. The picture caption was a mistake.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good now. Pass for GA. Have a Merry Christmas! Ruby 2010/2013 05:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)