# Talk:The Pine Bluff Variant

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Pine Bluff Variant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


### Checklist
### Comments
1
questing his beliefs  - is this right, or do you mean "questioning his beliefs"
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You still have one occurrence of "questing" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry about that...--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Goatee Man or the Goatee Man?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"leaves in a BMW " - Type of car is a little  specific,  is it really necessary for the plot?
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"hands over redacted microfilm." - Is this right, or is it "hands over a redacted microfilm."
I believe it's plural, as film can be a singular word, or a plural word.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"he kills the Skin-Headed Man " - Perhaps change to "Bremer kills the Skin-Headed Man"
Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is Bremer's true identity ever explained?
No, not really. I was kind of confused by that too.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"Mulder Undercover" - Uppercase in the original?
Yeah, it was.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  18:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Lede is really long for an article like this (article is 10,000 characters, roughly; per WP:LEDE it should only have one or two paragraphs.
I tried to cut it down a bit, but its about the same as all the other X-Files articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
2
What makes Critical Myth a reliable source?
Keegan is a published television critic, who has written for MediaBlvd Magazine (a Magazine that he is also an assistant editor to, Link). Granted, his website is a little Web 1.0, but he is legitimate. Here's a link about his writing history.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but how is Media Blvd. or TV.com reliable? The TV.com one may even be self published. Has he been published in any mainstream publications? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
TV.com, not so much, but I would consider Media Blvd. Magazine reliable. They have a full editorial staff, and have interviewed several very notable individuals, such as Billie Piper, Robert McKay, and others; while not super popular, they seem to at least be notable and reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not sure on that. The staff page indicates that most of their efforts have been on self-published media, and at the very least the chief editor is not full-time. Perhaps an outside opinion? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards MediaBlvd being reliable since their interviews have been cited by print media and they seem to have a bit of an editorial staff, I can't make a solid case for it, but I'd lean in that direction. I probably wouldn't see Keegan's site as one though. Note: Crisco asked me to weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks Mark. I guess I could accept the source here, but expect it to be questioned again at FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
3
Any commentary on the DVD's commentary track?
Unfortunately no. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Star Tribune on Highbeam, this episode and "The Post-Modern Prometheus" have commentary tracks (on The X-Files: The Complete Fifth Season. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm stupid. I'm so used to looking for special effects shorts, et al, I totally forgot about the commentary of the actual episode. I'll get right on that...--Gen. Quon (Talk)  01:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. It's not a prerequisite for GA status, so I'll pass now. Be sure to run through it before FA though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


### Further discussion
Okay, holding — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I believe I've fixed or addressed all the issues. Thank you for reviewing.--Gen. Quon (Talk)  03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, everything important is done but I have a comment regarding the DVD (see above) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Passing. If you're feeling celebratory, perhaps you could help review another article (there is a backlog, after all) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=prev&oldid=507243143 but appears to have been mangled by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=507248492&oldid=507243266 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pine_Bluff_Variant&diff=507622555&oldid=507622045
Fixed, along with minor grammatical from original version. I would have said "fake corpses" rather than "faux" is more natural too. 86.26.14.250 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)