# Talk:Chuck Versus Agent X

The coincidence is too good not be noted. But should it go under reception or cultural references? --Boycool (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cultural references would probably be the better place for it to be noted Ambaryer (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Versus Agent X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 13 June 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: 


### Comments
The talkpage needs Wikiprojects
Done.
The plot section is largely confusing to me (a non-Chuck watcher). Not sure if this can be fixed enough for non-viewers to comprehend, but I recommend giving it a slight rewrite
The episode itself was largely confusing, even for a hardcore viewer like me, but the summary is not quite chronological, especially in the first few paragraphs. It's only 372 or so words, so I'll work on it later.
I edited the plot and I think it's just about as detailed as it can get to be clear to non-Chuck viewers without going over on detail (or word count).
In the lead you say a character "makes a life-changing discovery" from a laptop, but the plot is unclear on this (it just says "spy will")
I tweaked the plot summary in the lead, because it wasn't true to the episode's actual plot.
Indicate Jeffster! is a band
Done
Too many "also"s and "revealed"s in production
I removed an "also" and changed a few "revealed"s. Tell me if there are still too many.
I recommend combining music and cultural ref sections (combine under "Music and cultural references" heading)
Done.
Websites are not italicize (i.e. TV by the Numbers (add wikilink also)). Also, Den of Geek is three words.
Done.
Sentences ending in quotes need a citation directly after period (mostly in reception section)
Done.
Ref 9 needs accessdate
Done; I was missing a bit of code in the ref.
Either italicize all Chucks and other TV shows in ref titles, or none of them
The only "Chuck"s italicized are the ones that were italicized in the titles of the original websites.
I recommend still italicizing all of them for consistency's sake (see Lost episodes for examples, if needed) Ruby2010 comment! 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Boycool (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll place the review on hold for seven days while everything gets sorted. Please reply here when your edits are finished, as I will not be watching the article page. Thanks and good luck, Ruby2010 comment! 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! Pass for GA. Nice work, Ruby2010 comment! 03:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you very much! --Boycool (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

that picture of Dalton with the tag "the identity of Agent X is revealed" is a HUGE spoiler, isn't it? what if I looked at it before I watched the episode? not good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.203.218 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 

It's pretty simple: If you don't want spoilers, don't read an article about an episode you haven't watched. It's not the job of Wikipedia to limit spoilers. So long as an episode has either aired, or the information is supported by a referenced source, it's legitimate to add. Ambaryer (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chuck Versus Agent X. 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/20120514222932/http://sfscope.com/2011/05/bait-and-switchchucks-chuck-vs.html to http://sfscope.com/2011/05/bait-and-switchchucks-chuck-vs.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505184359/http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/war_room/bin-laden-killed-after-firefight-in-pakistan-05022011 to http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/war_room/bin-laden-killed-after-firefight-in-pakistan-05022011
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)