Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (Supernatural)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

Pilot (Supernatural)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Pilot (Supernatural)/archive1

Nominator(s): Ω phois 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ω phois 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No dab links or dead external links. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source comments
- File:Pilotinfobox.JPG seems acceptable as a non-free image which is the subject of a good amount of commentary in the article, and File:Jared and Jensen.jpg is a properly-licensed free image.
- What makes Tracksounds reliable?
  - Also, for the magazines referenced each call should be formatted fully; in some there's the full wikilink to Titan Magazines, and in others just Titan.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Tracksounds is run by Christopher Coleman, who is a member of both the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the International Film Music Critics Association. Ω phois 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also fixed the Titan issues. Ω phois 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I already did a review on the talk page if you want to see my comments. Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments:

Add missing spaces between p. and the number. See current refs 6, 16, 18, 23, 26 for examples of missing spaces.
The Officlal Companion appears to have multiple authors - suggest adding both authors, and formatting as last name first, first name last.

That's all - otherwise good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Are the spaces for page numbers necessary? I've done numerous other FA's without the space.
- Nicholas Knight is the only author. However, I've gone ahead and formatted the names like you suggested. Ωphois 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose it could be wrong, but this shows two authors. Ideally, sources should be formatted with last name, first name. On a quick scan I had difficulty finding Knight, because the first word is Nicholas. Your page numbers are consistent, so that's good, but it looks better with the spaces. I'll leave it others to decide whether the change is necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kripke wrote the book's foreword. Does Wikipedia consider that as an author? Ωphois 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you use the foreward as a source, then Kripke should be added, otherwise it's probably fine as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking good so far. Don't have time for a full review right now (it's after midnight), but some quick things. Sam, Dean, Jared, and Jensen are probably linked too much. The characters are linked 3 times and the actors at least twice and the page isn't really that big that it would require that many links. It's probably an overlinking issue. I think the opening sentence should be reworded. "Pilot" is less of the title of the episode and more of an identifier of it being the pitched program. The reason I say this is because I don't recall "Pilot" appearing in the opening of the episode, as the latter episodes always list the title of the episode after the title card. I think we rewrote Pilot (Smallville)'s lead sentence for that very reason. I also feel like the lead paragraphs are a little thin compared to how much production info is in the article. It seems that they could better summarize the entire article. When I get a chance I'll review more in-depth. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into expanding the lead and the linking issues.
- As for the intro sentence, I felt the same way. However, a user pointed out on the talk page here that many other articles have it the current way. The series itself did not provide the title until the eleventh episode. Ωphois 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that many others are doing it. ~~The way I showed was only recently done...well after the Smallville page was featured.~~ I disagree with Reagen that the episode is called "Pilot". When it's referred to by the people that made it they say "the pilot", not simply "Pilot". This isn't the title of the episode, but an identifier for show being tested. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fixed the "Pilot" thing, and also added a little to the lead. Ωphois 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure about changing this. Wikipedia articles are usually started with the actual name of the subject of the article, not a descriptive phrase. If the episode in reality has no name then it's fine, but if the title of the episode actually is "Pilot" then it should be changed back. This is dependent on what the reliable sources say, and I assume the most reliable source would have to be the Supernatural: The Official Companion Season 1. I don't have a copy of this, but I assume User:Ophois does. So does the official companion call this episode simply the "pilot episode" or does it actually list the title of the episode as "Pilot"? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        LOE pages don't start with "List of Supernatural episodes is a list of episodes..." - If you're asking if the name listed in the list of episodes is "Pilot" then it would be. The question is not whether a listing of episodes says "Pilot" (give that they are just listing titles), but whether the sentences within say "Dean was more comical in 'Pilot'", or if they say "Dean was more comical in the pilot". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The companion lists it as The Pilot. Ω phois 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As in "The Pilot", "the pilot", or the "Pilot"? Could you show a sentence use so that we understand how they are using it? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "I love 'The Pilot'!" and "'The Pilot' sets the tone for the entire show." Ω phois 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would like to note, however, that the DVD titles just refer to it as PILOT. Ω pho is 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it seems that they are combining the two, and I don't think we should rename the page "The Pilot", since the DVD and I assume the Companion Guide's episode list and chapter title don't actually "The Pilot". So, it appears we're in a bit of a dilemma. They seem to be suggesting that just saying "Pilot" comes off as sounding weird, since that isn't an actual title like "All Hell Breaks Loose", but at the same time it's the identifying for that specific episode like "All Hell Breaks Loose" is the title for the later season finale. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's best to keep it the way it is. Ω phois 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I sometime like to use Google news to help me decide how to use a word. They don't capitalize it.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree. Most times people are gonna refer to it as "the pilot" rather than "Pilot". We should stick to what is more commonly used. Ω phois 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I added a small paragraph to the reception section detailing the two Emmy nominations. Ω phois 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-written article that seems to be comprehensive. I have only the one comment listed below, but as it's minor I'm happy supporting the article as it is. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The WB is referred to as both "The WB" and "the WB". Should "the" be capitalised?~~
- Thanks for your support. The one you are referring to is using "The WB" as an adjective. It calls Tarzan "the WB" series. I thought it would be best this way, because otherwise it would read "Series creator Eric Kripke had previously written for the The WB series Tarzan..." Ωphois 18:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough I guess. Nev1 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Last comment. It looks good, but I find myself reading a lot of unnecessary words (i.e. it could be more terse). I removed a bunch of "thats" from the article, because they were not needed. I would do a quick re-read and go through each sentence asking myself if some words can be removed without the loss of context or without making it grammatically incorrect. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through it and tried to trim it down some. Ω phois 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good, though I think the lead could be fleshed out just a bit more. Not a huge deal. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.