Talk:Fire (The X-Files)

Fire (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.

Fire (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
Date	Process	Result
August 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
January 17, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

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).

Episode Recap?

Not so much a synopsis as a script! Did you get the copywrite permission?

The "episode Recap" does seem un-necessarily long. Most of the episode's have a much smaller and more consise plot section instead of the full-blown script. I removed the name "episode recap" for the time being, and will hopefully get the plot area shortened a bit. AddMan3001 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I accidentally erased the script while trying to move it. whoever originally put it there can feel free to add it back to the page, but a shorter version that isn't the full script would be much better. For example, the recap on the episode Lazarus is much better in terms of length. AddMan3001 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the plot synopsis a bit; it's still very complete, but at least doesn't read like a poetic analysis of the episode's subtext (although I know some people would benefit from same). I don't know if it's appropriate to remove the "too long" tag to indicate that I've shortened it, so for the moment I have not done so. Also, does anyone know what the story behind the production of this episode is? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was written as a thinly veiled "smoking = evil" message in an attempt to pander to special interest groups who may have protested the glamorization of smoking in earlier episodes. Whether such a thing actually occurred, I don't know, but it seams a plausible theory for this episode, which seems a little too thinly written not to have been a vehicle for some agenda. Oh, and why exactly is the Mulder's-underwear scene "infamous"? Wpell (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will begin read through and initial review within 24 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"Mulder tells Scully that Phoebe is playing mind games with him by approaching him with this case, because of a debilitating fear of fire." -who, Mulder? Perhaps say " because he has a debilitating fear of fire".
"Bob the Caretaker" paints the home with rocket fuel. What do you mean paints it with rocket fuel? Literally has a can of rocket fuel and brush?
"While there, he burns down a local bar with apparent pyrokinetic abilities." Why does he do this, just for the sake of it?
Mulder and Scully find the driver's charred body in the bathroom... Suddenly everything upstairs starts bursting into flames. I think this should be in the same paragraph.
Fixed the first one. As for number two, that's exactly what he does. I'll clarify it a bit better. And for number three, it never explains why. I guess the producers wanted an excuse to show that the guy literally controlled fire instead of just being an arsonist, but it's never made clear. Got the fourth one. GRAPPLE X 12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Can you say Mark Sheppard (L'ively) just so we know who he is without looking in the infobox. It may be clear if you really look at it but initially I jumped to the conclusion is was a stunt man or something.

"The exterior shots of the hotel were filmed on location at a hotel in Vancouver which had, coincidentally, been rebuilt after burning to the ground" Do you know which hotel?
Got those. GRAPPLE X 13:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast

"retrospective of the first season in Entertainment Weekly rated the episode a B, praising Mark Sheppard's "sizzling performance", though finding that the character of Phoebe Green was a detriment to the episode." Why was she a detriment to the episode?

Quoted the article a bit better to explain that. GRAPPLE X 13:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK now thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

No problems here. Good job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]