Longstreet was replaced as director, and some missing scenes needed to be shot after the initial filming. - Above you say he directed it. Did he come back or something?
The additional footage (one full scene and some camera coverage) was directed by replacement director Michael Katleman; aside from that additional stuff Longstreet still directed the bulk of the episode. The second paragraph of "Filming" elaborates on this, but that lead sentence could be rewritten if you feel it's misleading or confusing. GRAPPLEX14:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be better to clarify a bit, as "directed by Longstreet" suggests that he did the whole thing.
I can take those out if you think it's better without them, didn't see any harm in them but they're easily removed. GRAPPLEX14:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: Usually i don't like references in the plot section because it is obvious that the work itself is the reference. However, if there are good reliable sources that summerize the episode, I think it is useful to cite them at the end of the section. The User 567 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ones used here are from two books about the series, one "official" and therefore probably considered a primary source, the other unofficial and secondary. I could easily drop one or both. GRAPPLEX14:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I only dislike references in the section if they goes to the work itself. I mean, in an article about a book, we don't need a citation in the plot section that cites the actual book. When the citations goes to other sources which also summerize the plot, I think they can be useful to the reader. So I think they should stay, both of them. But I don't have a strong feeling about it if others disagree. The User 567 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to remove, just commenting that it's not necessary to include either (especially since both works are offline)
"ventilator shaft" - ventilator shaft or ventilation shaft
September 24, 1993; as mentioned under "Broadcast and reception". Would it be better to clarify that the Fox network broadcast was the American one? I can easily add that in. GRAPPLEX14:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MIssed that.
UGO Networks listed the character as one of their "Best TV Serial Killers" - Their killers? A rephrasing may be in order
I'm not convinced Den of Geek qualifies as an RS or a notable review
They're operated by Dennis Publishing, who also operate publications such as Fortean Times and Bizarre. The site itself is operated out of that company's editorial offices in London, and it does keep an editorial staff; though the tone is generally not a serious one. I could lose the material sourced to it without too much detriment if consensus is that the site doesn't fall under WP:RS though. GRAPPLEX14:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add, in addition to Grapple's criteria, that the site has always published reliable info in other non-X-Files related articles I used it as a source for. Also, due to the presence of an editorial staff and its owner, I'd say it qualifies (Just my two cents).--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer further feedback on this (I think I raised this about Episode 2 a while back.
I found this, could be useful. According to one editor, the company that owns Den of Geek publishes "Maxim, Fortean Times, MacUser, etc"--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
