# Talk:Pilot (Community)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —97198 (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is looking pretty good right now, but there are still numerous minor problems to fix and a couple of bigger issues.

The lead is a little short - per WP:LEAD it should summarise the whole article. Maybe explain the plotline rather than just say "The episode introduces Jeff Winger..." and you should add a couple of sentences about the production of the episode to the lead.
Critics were generally favourable to the episode - poorly worded, anything like "The episode attracted generally favourable reviews from critics" would be better
Viewers also got to know the show's other main characters... - a bit of a tautology since this happens in every show's pilot, and a bit informal for an encyclopedia
a bright spot in NBC's Thursday lineup - "bright spot" is a bit of a WP:PEACOCK term unless you place it in quotation marks and say "and was referred to as..."
where the other shows suffered declines in ratings - specify that this means NBC's other shows because I first took this to mean other channels' shows in the same timeslot
The plot summary is far, far too long - MOS:TV suggests that plot synopses should be between 200 and 500 words, but this is 730 words long. If I'm correct in assuming this was a half-hour episode (about 20 minutes minus ads) then it should be at the lower scale of the suggested word count, probably around 200 to 300. You'll need to cut out a lot of detail.
Usually, for episode articles, rather than having a cast/characters section, the actors names are integrated into the plot, e.g. "Jeff then meets with Dr. Ian Duncan (John Oliver)..."
both Joel McHale, John Oliver and Chevy Chase had cameo roles - "both" doesn't make sense
Reese Witherspoon's character from the 1999 movie Election - "Election" (like all films) should be italicised
I started really liking them," he explains "even though they - past tense "explained" with a comma after it
About Chase Harmon said that he - a bit clunky, something better would be "Harmon said that Chase..."
In the reception section, italicise newspaper/magazine names, i.e. "TV Guide" and "Variety"
Premièring in the 9:30 spot on the evening - I'm not American, but I think just "premiering" is the American spelling of the word (for an article about an American show). "9:30 pm" should also be clarified.
seeing how The Office was down 18% from the previous the year's première - ditto with "premiere" and maybe start with "considering that The Office..."
File:Community Pilot cast.jpg has a good fair use rationale but isn't low resolution. The rule of thumb is that non-free images shouldn't be more than 300 pixels wide or high, or any bigger than a size that lets it fulfil its purpose.
Nice work so far. I'll put the article on hold for seven days so that you can address the issues mentioned above. Good luck, —97198 (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say, I'll do a check of the plot prose later, assuming that it's going to undergo significant overhaul. —97198 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm going to fail the article since none of the problems have been resolved. I could have extended the hold period, but since there's been no activity on the article since November, it doesn't look like the issues are going to be addressed. It's not too far to go for GA, so good luck with future nominations. —97198 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review, it was very helpful. Unfortunately I was away over Christmas, and didn't get a chance to fix the article, but I have done it now. There were a couple of points where I disagreed with the review, however:

I agree absolutely with the length of the plot summary; this is in fact something that irritates me a lot in other articles. I cut it down to under 400, which I think is ok for a pilot episode, with so much information packed into it. One way to cut was to move the character introduction bits down to the next section. Though cast/characters sections are not common in episode articles, I thought it was legitimate for a pilot, where character introduction is such an important part.
As for the size of the image, I disagree entirely with this. I don't think it is a correct reading of fair use guidelines to follow a 300px maximum slavishly. At that size the faces would be little more than blurry blobs, and the image's purpose - to introduce the characters - would not be met. The image in its current form is certainly low resolution compared to original photo files, and in no way threatens the commercial rights of the owners (if anything it should help).
I will re-nominate this soon, and hopefully I can reach an agreement with the next reviewer on these issues. Lampman (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: James26 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Well-written overall. I only made one minor change in the lead. However, I think that the caption for the cast photo should use actor surnames, instead of character names.
Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It's well-sourced in general. The plot summary is covered by WP:MOSTV, and I think this extends to the descriptions in "Cast and characters." In another minor change, I had to move one citation in "Production," in order to provide a more direct source for something (the thing about saving a real-life relationship). However, the TV Guide source in "Reception" is no longer available. I'd like to see whether the comment will be removed or replaced.
I've come across this problem before; it seems all of this writer's articles from a certain period have gone missing. Fortunately it was relatively easy to find another critic who said practically the same.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The "Reception" section mentions that "others were less impressed," but cites only one negative/mixed review. Is this all that could be found?
No, but seeing how it received a Metascore of 69, and in the interest of neutrality and due weight, isn't a good/bad review ratio of 2/1 fair? If you want I could perhaps add one or two more good ones and one more poor one?
Reconsidered my stance.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks for your review, let me know what you think. Lampman (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Passed. -- James26 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually added a couple of more reviews; it was a bit thin. It's now three good ones and two less so; 60/40 seems fair. Lampman (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pilot (Community). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110228225535/http://www.channel101.com:80/shows/view.php?media_id=2621 to http://www.channel101.com/shows/view.php?media_id=2621
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)