"Volume 3 of The X-Files Mythology collection is a DVD release containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."
could be a correct introduction. Maybe:
"The X-Files Mythology - Volume 3 is the third released DVD collection containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."
Those sections are Ok. I went and made some minor edits to polish the text and remove redundancies, double wording, etc.
Special features
This section needs a ref. Maybe the lines notes from the DVD? IDK.
Footnotes, External links
Good.
Please add the ref on special features (or answer with the reason why its needless) to finish the review and pass the article. —
Hahc2120:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Great! I enjoyed reading the article. It's well written, broad and focused, properly referenced with inline citations, it meets all MoS guides included on GAC, no edit wars on it, no original research (from what I can verify), it's properly illustrated with images (because they exist). So, passed XD —
Hahc2121:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Verdict
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
"Volume 3 of The X-Files Mythology collection is a DVD release containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."
could be a correct introduction. Maybe:
"The X-Files Mythology - Volume 3 is the third released DVD collection containing selected episodes from the fifth to the eighth seasons of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."
Those sections are Ok. I went and made some minor edits to polish the text and remove redundancies, double wording, etc.
Special features
This section needs a ref. Maybe the lines notes from the DVD? IDK.
Footnotes, External links
Good.
Please add the ref on special features (or answer with the reason why its needless) to finish the review and pass the article. —
Hahc2120:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Great! I enjoyed reading the article. It's well written, broad and focused, properly referenced with inline citations, it meets all MoS guides included on GAC, no edit wars on it, no original research (from what I can verify), it's properly illustrated with images (because they exist). So, passed XD —
Hahc2121:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Verdict
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)