Talk:Pilot (Smash)

Pilot (Smash) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass. The prose is excellently written and conforms to every WP:MOS guideline I can think of. Almost every factoid and word has a reason for being in the article. What errors there are are very small. For example: "Also, from January 23 to February 6, 2012, it will also be streamed online at NBC.com and hulu." This is a past event, and so the sentence is now worded poorly. This and other errors could be easily fixed with a few minutes of copy editing, and do not interfere with the overall clarity of the article. Very well done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. The lead section is adequate, but could still be improved upon. WP:LEAD states that leads "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". Take this to mean that it should at least touch on everything notable enough to merit a section in the article. Thus, the lead should probably spend some more time on conception, writing, casting, and music. This is a minor point and does not merit failing the article. Layout is excellent. The plot summary, while not violating any rules, should probably be tweaked to more clearly conform to WP:MOSFICT. That is, the plot summary should contain words that signpost the plot summary as a work of fiction, rather than real world events. This distinction is at least partially made just by naming the section "Plot" rather than "History" or "Events". Where words to watch are used, they are justified with ample referencing. Good work here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I am reserving my decision on this item until action is taken. The references are ample and very nicely formatted. There is one reference that needs to updated, as the link is currently dead: number four, NBCUniversal Executive Biographies. The information needs to be found again and be properly formatted to be useful in the long term. I cannot pass the article on this point until a complete web citation template explaining exactly which part of the page is being cited, who published the information, when the information was published and when it was accessed, is completed. The reference was fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Hold. Same problem as above. Everything is excellent save that one dead link. Make it a full citation!~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is extremely well researched and supported.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. The article covers all of the usual information for a TV episode, and then some. Some of the information in the Production section appears to have been copy-pasted to or from the main Smash (TV series) article, and the argument could be made that the information is better suited in that article, but this being the first episode, the point could go either way and I'm inclined to leave it be.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At no point does the article slip into minutia, and there is a good reason for all of the content to be present.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. The article presents the facts, and presents both positive and negative comments about the show. The article is balanced, as reviews of the show were mainly positive, and more space is devoted to positive comments than negative.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. There are no current edit wars, though the article is still being slowly and actively improved by editors. The thrust of these improvements seems to be consistently in the same direction, careful, and for the better.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fail. The image of Anjelica Huston is CC licensed, but the image of Ivy in the infobox does not have adequate or valid fair-use rationales. The image has been taken from a blog, not an NBC affiliated website or a major publication. The image has not been cropped. The image is available from newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, but at a greatly reduced resolution. This image is in fact the highest available resolution, not a "low resolution" as claimed, and has been flagged. It is, in my view, entirely replaceable with a low resolution image (say 220px wide) and is a possible candidate for speedy deletion. Another image should be found, or the current image should be reduced immediately. Until then, I cannot pass the article. See WP:NFURG for wikipedia's policy on fair use. Image was removed. Please feel free to add a reduced resolution of the photo. It was excellent, just didn't conform to the rules of fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. Images are used sparingly and correctly illustrate the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~I reserve my decision. The article has problems that can be addressed simply, but that must be solved before the article meets GA criteria.~~ The problems were all resolved. Nicely done.

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all the mistakes NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pilot (Smash). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]