Talk:Roland (The X-Files)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoland (The X-Files) 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.
Good topic starRoland (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 1) 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
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 17, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 25, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Željko Ivanek, who plays the title role in The X-Files episode "Roland," was the first person to audition for the part?
Current status: Good article

Untitled[edit]

Anyone know what are the names of the twins actos who played Young Arthur and Roland Grable on the flashback? What about the actress who played the twins' mom?

Thanks in advance!

Bianca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianca23br (talkcontribs) 01:30, 8 September 2007

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roland (The X-Files)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"Mulder finds four sets of handwriting on the whiteboard" Sets? Would pieces make more sense?

  • The discussion ends when Roland experiences a violent vision and they leave. Seems an odd time to leave if he has a dramatic outburst. Can you elaborate a little what the violent vision was? You then mention he had another predicting a death.
    Fixed the vision thing. The whiteboard bit is one of those stereotypical huge equation things and Mulder concludes that there's four unique samples of handwriting amongst the whole jumble. I'm not sure if either "sets" or "pieces" really work so I'll rephrase it a bit.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

On second thoughts sets looks OK.. Good enough to pass. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]