Talk:Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / The X-Files Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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 review is

transcluded from Talk:Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 08:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I love Bruce Campbell, but this episode never did it for me. I think once the series started using LA actors, who were much more recognisable, it became that little bit less believable and immersive.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

   The caption for the lead image is way too long (five lines!). I don't think it needs to contain the specifics of the effects shot, so long as the image page itself specifies that it shows effects which are discussed specifically in the article.
   "about the fifth of sixth idea" -> I assume this is meant to be "fifth or sixth"? If it's "fifth of sixth" in the source, append it with {{sic}}.
   "Originally, the crew had planned on renting a real fetal skeleton". This is my favourite sentence ever.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Ref 4 seems like it could do with some work. Is this a special feature from the Season 6 DVD? If so, the |location= field should be filled in to identify this; if not, it should still be used to identify the source of the video. As is, it seems too vague to be verifiable. Ref 6 isn't needed, the article is about the episode and so doesn't need to reference the episode for information about itself. There's also a good few instances of the same reference cited several times consecutively, these could be folded in together to let the prose flow without interruption—three sentences all back by one reference only need to be cited at the end of the third, for example, not once at the end of each.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems okay. I'll add another review to the article to round out that section.

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article seems to be neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable, history shows no controversy.

6. 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

   :

   File:Terms of endearment x files.jpg needs a specific rationale for the episode. Given that it highlights a special effect which is discussed in detail, this should be included on the rationale. File:Bruce Campbell .jpg is free, but is a bit blurry and artefact-y. Perhaps File:Bruce Campbell2.jpg or File:Bruce Campbell at FSC (2).jpg would be better, they're both of a similar proportion to the one currently used so they should fit right in grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few things to straighten out here. Shouldn't take too long. Well done on another solid article.

Thanks for reviewing. I think I've straightened out all the issues. I, too, love that fetal skeleton line. ;) --Gen. Quon (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my intention to promote this article to A-Class. The article has gone through a rather substantial revision from where it was last week and has been expanded enough that I believe the article meets comprehensiveness. Obviously however it is not perfect, and thus I would welcome any comments. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few things:

• "The episode received received mixed to positive reviews from critics. The performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell was the source for most of the positive notices about the episode, with some critics calling the episode disappointing in nature." This section seems a little clunky. Maybe break up the last sentence into two.

• Altered to "The episode received received mixed to positive reviews from critics, with the performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell attracting most of the positive reception", if that isn't better than how about "The episode received received mixed to positive reviews from critics. The performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell attractED most of the positive reception"?

• Intro: Summarize the themes
• Casting: I wouldn't emphasize "other" with italics in "the other drama Fox ordered that spring"
• Casting: "coming come" -> "coming home"
• Themes: "presentation wasn't entirely" -> "presentation was not entirely"
• Bibliography: Make all the ISBNs ISBN 13

Other than that, this article is great!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Beyond what Gen. has mentioned, I made a few corrections to the text.

*I'm not sure "soundscape" is appropriate here; Snow's score is really just a standard musical accompaniment rather than an Alan Splet-style aural tapestry. Just "score", "soundtrack", etc, would work.

• "Original drafts for the episode were "heavier on pure shock value and lighter of humor and human interest"." -> attribute this, it would help round the sentence out a bit and would be useful to put a name to it as it sounds a bit subjective.
• "a replacement demon-baby" -> just go with "baby" rather than "demon-baby".

*Given that Gen. feels a little more on the plot in the lead is necessary, I'd say trim down what you already have before you add the ending, or it could end up overly long. Perhaps remove the sentence about Spender and replace that with the ending to retain the same approximate length.

• Grand other than that; though I'll second Gen.'s concerns as well. GRAPPLE X 02:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy with it; with Gen.'s approval we can get this one promoted. GRAPPLE X 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed any typos and changed all suggested prose. Fixed the ISBNs (wasn't aware of the ISBN 13 thing) and attributed the quote. I have tweaked the lead to read clearer, and added more detail into the plot, while also removing some overly intricate information. In addition, I added a sentence about the themes. I believe all the comments have been adjusted and if not, inform me further. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent! I second the motion!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terms of Endearment (The X-Files). 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/20130824061453/http://www.munchkyn.com/xf-rvws/endearment.html to http://www.munchkyn.com/xf-rvws/endearment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708212624/http://thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/12231.html to http://thecelebritycafe.com/movies/full_review/12231.html

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.

• 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) 20:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terms of Endearment (The X-Files). 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/20111219002540/http://www.starpulse.com/news/Andrew_Payne/2008/07/25/x_files_10_best_episodes to http://www.starpulse.com/news/Andrew_Payne/2008/07/25/x_files_10_best_episodes

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.

• 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) 07:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watched this episode yesterday. The scene where Wayne is in the hospital bed next to his wife Laura. The article states "Wayne opens his mouth and returns her soul to her body, allowing her to recover as he dies." We do see him open his mouth and the soul effect go from his mouth to hers, she lives and he dies. Him giving her her soul back does make sense as an interpretation, but... Laura is not shown after this scene. I thought the show may be suggesting the demon character may have left his injured body and possessed Laura's healthier body (and perhaps one that could have normal children), and that this is why his body died but hers lived. I was expecting a scene showing the Laura character after to see how she behaves, but there was none, Laura is not shown after this scene, so it is hard to tell. Possession or soul-swapping is within the themes the show has touched on in several other episodes, it fits with the shows tone. Since the Laura character is not shown awake after this I thought it may be deliberately ambiguous as to whether he is giving her her own soul back or possessing her body with his soul. Is there something that makes one interpretation definitely right, and my alternative idea wrong. I thought from what is shown on screen only, and what happens in the show in general, it is a bit ambiguous. Could it be written closer to what the audience sees rather than what is inferred, or are there sources showing the writers considered the scene to show "him giving her soul back" simple as. At the moment there are some references in the plot section, but this statement in question is not sourced.

Am I talking rubbish? I admit him giving her her soul back makes sense as the simplest most likely description of what the scene is trying to show, but as I was watching it, I just thought it wasn't clear, that perhaps what I wrote above is what's happening, or could be.

 Carlwev  05:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to dig up the guide book, but I have a feeling that what is in the article is based on that book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]