Talk:Jose Chung's From Outer Space

Jose Chung's From Outer Space 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.

Jose Chung's From Outer Space is part of the The X-Files (season 3) 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
September 22, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
December 23, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the X-Files task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jose Chung's From Outer Space/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Glimmer721 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will review this soon. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting yesterday, mainly just italicizing The X-Files and other conventions in the "Reception" section, and I removed the small formatting on the ref tags. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

One redirect which leads back: [1]
Is Fox supposed to be in all caps?
"The episode is a stand alone episode, like most episodes of The X-Files, and follows the normal Monster-of-the-Week pattern of the show. However, more humor than is typical for the series is injected via manipulation of point of view, leading to multiple re-tellings of certain events with varying degrees of unreliable narrators." This is very OR-ish...do the sources talk about how The X-Files usually consist of stand-alone episodes and this one is more humorous? I'm sure there is a way to reword it without the OR anyway.
"A pair of teenagers in their car are captured by a pair of grey aliens"...quite repetitive; I would change the first to "Two teenagers..."
Contraction "aren't" in first sentence of "Production" section
Why does Alex Trebek's caption say "(2009, Marabuchi)"? I can't find anything on the image page which mentions that was when and who the picture was taken by.
Who is Ray Harryhausen (director, writer, etc; it would clarify the sentence)
"The writer claimed to be burned out and not cut out for the frantic pace of the show"...I would put "burned out" and "not cut out" in quotes if he really said that; otherwise reword to soun more formal.

I've got to go but I'll be back soon to look over the last section! It's generally pretty good so far, no major problems. :) Glimmer721 ^talk 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm back... Glimmer721 ^talk 03:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Anderson and Darin Morgan do not need to be linked again in the "Reception" section.
On the other hand, link Paul Rabwin in the same section because he has not been linked before.

Okay, that's it--I will place this on hold while these minor issues are addressed. Glimmer721 ^talk 03:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believed I've fixed all the problems. Will wait for you to re-evalutate!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I will pass this. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jose Chung's The Bridge to the Metamodern"[edit]

I see a link to a YouTube video called "Jose Chung's The Bridge to the Metamodern" was added. It looks pretty cool, but I'm not sure if it belongs here. I didn't want to just revert it, so thought it best to bring up here. Any thoughts, @Grapple X, Drovethrughosts, and Glimmer721:.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it doesn't belong here. I might be a cool video, but there's several factors here. It looks like its in violation of WP:YOUTUBE; there's no evidence that the uploader of said video is notable, they have 73 subscribers; anyone can make an analysis video of a piece of fiction and upload it to YouTube, it doesn't make it notable; editor that added the links only have edits involving this link, this points to possible advertising/promotion. The YouTube video, much like web sources, have to be notable and primarily come from reliable third-party sources. It should also be noted that XLinkBot automatically reverted the edits. This is also a GA-level article, so we have to be careful. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I too think that the editor might be trying to promote their own video (which, hey, I understand), but it doesn't seem like it's really that notable. Additionally, the editor has added in some references to prove the notability of the video (which—and correct me if I'm wrong—doesn't seem right per the MoS). However, one of them is an unpublished doctoral dissertation that mentions the video in passing, the other two are self-published sources, and the final one is a post from a random website.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]