Talk:The X-Files season 7

The X-Files season 7 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.

The X-Files season 7 is the main article in the The X-Files (season 7) 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
May 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 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:The X-Files (season 7)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 04:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. I'll be reviewing this one shortly (Monday evening BST). GRAPPLE X 04:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Where did it all go so wrong?

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The second paragraph of the lead uses a few repetitive phrases ("long-running" twice and "arcs" three times). Could do with a bit of variety.
"This season would be the last to feature the old opening sequence for the series" -> I would used "original" instead of "old"; connect this sentence to the next one with "as"; and move it to a later lead paragraph.
" As such, the episode "Millennium" was written and produced." -> "as such" to "as a result".
"Season seven debuted with lower numbers than the previous season" -> clarify what the numbers are; I know they're viewing figures but a reader who doesn't look at a lot of TV articles might not.
"in order to ease his opportunity to find movie work" -> "in order to facilitate in work in films"
"Furthermore, the move to Los Angeles also meant a drastic price increase for the series." -> "Furthermore, the move to Los Angeles also meant a drastic increase in production costs."
"Davis approached Carter with his idea about The Smoking Man trying to seduce Scully with medical knowledge, who was intrigued." - Who was intrigued, Scully or Carter?
"Duchovny was eligible for an estimated 5 percent," -> "five percent", but clarify what that's five percent of.
"wanting to purse other parts of my career" -> Prusue, I assume? Unless it's a typo in the source.
There's a bit of a linking error in the "accolades" section there.
Drop "unique" from "Hungry"'s summary. It is unique but it sounds a bit like puffery.
"if he’s so lucky" -> "he is". Avoid contractions.
"Scully’s former kidnapper ("Irresistible" Season 2)" -> "Scully’s former kidnapper (seen in season two's "Irresistible")"
"After a young boy with cancer, whose parents don’t" -> "do not"
"a married man whom she had an affair with during medical school" -> "a married man with whom she had an affair during medical school"
Maybe reword "Hollywood A.D."'s blurb a little to clarify it's the X-Files, and not The X-Files, that the film's based on. I still hate that episode by the way.
"wheelchair-bound" -> as I found out from editing here, that's actually seen as a derogatory term now. I'd probably rephrase it to "wheelchair-using" or collapse "wheelchair-bound, mentally-impaired" to "handicapped".

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
It might be tidier to cite the points in the plot summary to the Shapiro book as the citations will be neater; but at the same time it's handy to have episodes cited as a frame of reference. Maybe pairing them (like what's done in X (The X-Files)) would be good, as it offers a secondary source on top of the primary episode source.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Do we need a paragraph for the plot of "En Ami"? I'd be more willing to leave it if it seemed more important but it's one of those episodes that could pass as a standalone rather than a major plot point. Maybe trim it down a little if you do keep it.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Grand.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Fine.
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:
Not a bother here; I like that double portrait one. Both of those are free so that's great.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just sticking this one on hold for now. It's good to see a few seasons getting the GA treatment, they're a pain in the hoop to do but they need done. GRAPPLE X 02:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe I've addressed all the concerns. And you didn't like "Hollywood A.D."? Maybe it was a tad too reflexive.. and the dancing skeletons were stupid... and the dancing zombies. Pretty much anything in that episode that danced was stupid.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skinner in a bubble bath. Skinner. In a bubble bath. Arguably "Fight Club" was worse but there's something about seeing a man who went toe to toe with X in season two sitting in a bath sipping champagne that just sits weird. There's still worse out there though. Article looks good to go now, though. Passing it now; well done. GRAPPLE X 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen about half of season nine. I just picked up the season the other day, but I don't want to ruin the series with it. :P --Gen. Quon (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"John Doe" is great, "Release" is also great but needs you to have seen the rest of the series first I guess. Apart from that it's pretty bad. There's some good guest appearances (James Remar and Burt Reynolds stand out) and a few ideas that might have worked if some of the old magic hadn't gone ("Underneath" could really have benefited from having someone like Morgan and Wong, Johannessen, or even Vince Gilligan writing it, for example). The super soldier stuff is certainly no worse than the whole Scully finds an African UFO and suddenly Mulder's a vegetable arc, but the baby definitely jumps the shark. Speaking of which, "Jump the Shark" is just unfair. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X-Files (season 7). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the11thhour.com/archives/052000/tvreviews/xf_brandx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X-Files (season 7). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321062738/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=ab9b65d4-0347-48c9-a2fa-46c444fda92c to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=ab9b65d4-0347-48c9-a2fa-46c444fda92c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]