Jump to content

Talk:Soft Light (The X-Files)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSoft Light (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 starSoft Light (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 2) 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
July 30, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 3, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Page move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Move Duja 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
Lede
Plot
  • Nothing; Huh 0)
Production
Broadcast and reception
References
External links

On hold. Good work. TBrandley 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There, I believe I've gotten everything. Thank you for the review.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will pass the artcle. Congrats! TBrandley 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant critique[edit]

The last segment of the critique section references a page that is no longer being maintained. Additional research being necessary to assess the significance of this critic, which doesn't seem readily available as the critic is not noteworthy themselves, seems to suggest this is a trivial segment and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:5602:B943:1C2F:21BC:4AD:6F32 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]