# Talk:Milagro (The X-Files)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Milagro (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I have to say, this probably ranks among my least favourite episodes of any television show.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Given things a light copy-edit to fix anything I saw wrong. I've simplified down some of the figures listed—9.0 is the same as 9, for example.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
Seems grand. I made some changes to ref 12, as it's better to add navigational notes in a manner that looks deliberate—sticking them in the |title= field can lead to them being overlooked.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
Not keen on how brief the "reception" part of "Broadcast and reception" is. I have a review for it in the Shearman and Pearson book I'll add, and I think there has been mention of this episode in some of the articles we've cited before. I'll take a check through those today.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral/unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
History is uncontroversial, article is stable.
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: 
Images are mostly fine. One is commons (and I can think of another article I'd like to use that in so I'm glad I saw it here); the non-free one could perhaps mention why that scene is "poignant" (it's already mentioned in its caption so it's not a big issue).
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Going to put this one on hold for now. The crit 3 work I'll handle but I want to be sure the review is sorted before I start adding information to the article. Aside from that it should be good to pass. GRAPPLE X 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, cool, I'll sort through some of the articles we've used to see if I've missed something.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Added the Shearman and Pearson review, found some other stuff online too. Looking much more rounded now, so I'm going to pass this one. Well done. GRAPPLE X 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Milagro (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/20130927030855/http://biglight.com/blog/oh-milagro/ to http://biglight.com/blog/oh-milagro/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714040949/http://www.ugo.com/movies/top-xfiles-monsters-ken-naciemento to http://www.ugo.com/movies/top-xfiles-monsters-ken-naciemento
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) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milagro (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/20121620331100/http://www.forteantimes.com/reviews/films/1257/frank_spotnitz_on_the_xfiles_essentials.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/reviews/films/1257/frank_spotnitz_on_the_xfiles_essentials.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: 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) 22:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)