Talk:Pilot (The Blacklist)

Pilot (The Blacklist) 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.
Review: September 11, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC) @Rp0211: Comments[reply]

Most people will know that Pilot means it's the first episode, and first episode of the first season is a little clunky--take a look at Pilot (Glee) and Pilot (Veronica Mars) and use whichever construction you prefer. Done
"long-thought-dead" is too complicated and not worded very well. Also, after "long-thought-dead terrorist", put a comma. Done
In the lead, include a summary of the material in the production section as well. Done
"She confronts Reddington to find out what he knows." Does the episode end there? If so, add at the end, "before fading to black, ending the episode on a cliffhanger" or something like that. Done
"Background" and "Production" should be one section, traditionally called "Production". Done
Is the correct term greenlighted or greenlit? I actually don't know… Done

It is "green-lit" according to dictionary.com. Rp0211 ^(talk2me)

I don't find the publishers in web sources to be that necessary, and they get kind of redundant after a while. Obviously, keep the work parameter though. Not done

Publishers are okay in the references section as long as the same subsequent sources are not wiki-linked. Rp0211 ^(talk2me)

Okay, I didn't know that. I personally don't like them but they can stay. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more in the Long Island Herald source you could use. Done
What do Boone's feelings about her auditions have to do with callbacks. Done
Is that really all the reviews you could find for the pilot episode of a major network show? I can find more—for example this New York Times review, this Variety review, this TIME review, this Boston Globe review, as well as ones by HitFix, PopMatters, The Huffington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Herald, People, Denver Post, The Wall Street Journal, Zap2it, TV Guide, Vulture, etc. The list goes on and on. Obviously, you don't have to use all of these reviews, but a good number of them would be nice. See this Metacritic page for a full list (although it lists reviews for season 1 most of them are for the pilot). Done
Used Checklinks and everything looks good. Done

Looking pretty good! The only major thing I would say is the reviews thing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 20:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of the points that you listed above. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp0211: Congratulations! I can definitely pass now. Nice work! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: