Talk:Redux (The X-Files)

Redux (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.

Redux (The X-Files) is part of the The X-Files (season 5) series, a good topic. It is also part of the Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 2 series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 26, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 26, 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
???	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 High-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.

Untitled

Notability is clearly asserted. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Redux 5x02.jpg

Image:Redux 5x02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widescreen

I corrected a quote that stated that this episode was the first episode to be filmed in widescreen. This is untrue, because the opening shows scenes from the last episode of season 4 in widescreen. These scenes are not cropped, but show more information on the left and right sides, suggesting that the last episode of season 4 was at least filmed in widescreen. I won't posit if the native format of the X-Files is widescreen or which was originally shot in widescreen. However, I just wanted to point out that this previous episode was filmed in a widescreen aspect ratio.Kakomu (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

May as well review this one as we're now closing in on Black Oil being a GTC.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Did a copyedit myself, should be ok.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I'm thinking that since this is the continuation of "Gethsemane" it might be a good idea to include a very brief summary of that episode in the plot section, like seen here or here.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Ref 11 is dead. The official emmys website would support that Duchovny was nominated that year, but you might have to dig around in the official guide books to see if you can corroborate that it was based on this episode, as the awards themselves don't specify.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The fourth season Mesiler book also contains sections on these episodes, which might add something to it. I can check this later if you don't have it handy; same goes for the two reviews that will be in the Shearman book. They'd help pad this out as the reception section looks a bit small for a two-part episode. I'm also vaguely sure that the fifth season DVDs have a feature of some sort about Lindala making a bunch of those fake aliens. I'll see if I can find that too, unless you have it to hand.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Seems fine.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Not a problem.
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:
Images are relevant, one is free; the non-free one could do with a better rationale however. It highlights a scene which exemplifies the "loss of faith" idea by showing all the pre-prepared hoax bodies, so specify on the image's rationale that it's used to illustrate one of the key themes of the episode in this manner.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few issues to work through here, if you need me to grab any of the material I mentioned for you then let me know and I'll go hoke it out. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to add to the reviews and fix the links, etc. Unfortunately, I do not have my Meisler book handy, and I don't have the bonus feature-version of the season five DVD. I'll hunt around to see if maybe the featurette is on YouTube, though.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I can grab both of those tonight. GRAPPLE X 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've patched up everything except the production info and the Emmy award. I found a cite that said Duchovny was nominated for an award in 1998, but I can't find it saying it was for "Redux". Maybe it's in the Meisler book? If not, I'll remove it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The awards section at the back of Meisler's volume 4 doesn't specify that this episode earned Duchovny the acting nod, although it does list individual episodes for most of the award nominations there. The "Redux" section in volume 3 doesn't actually have any information about the episodes, just a plot summary. The award mention should then be moved off to the season article as that's all we can trace it to. I've added some information based on the DVD features which rounds things out a bit more, though, so I guess it's an okay trade. I could have sworn there was something about Lindala building those alien corpses; but maybe that was a season 4 feature for the one seen in "Gethsemane". Weird. Anyway, when the award stuff is moved elsewhere we'll call this one a pass. GRAPPLE X 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed it. Should be good to go. --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy days, all set. Another one passed. Well done! GRAPPLE X 03:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Trainwreck

"Although it was normal for the writers to add one or two different storylines for the different episodes, to create different interpretations, but Carter felt it took "the idea of the show" and spun it "in the most interesting way"."

Something has gone wrong with this sentence.