Talk:Pilot (Sports Night)

Pilot (Sports Night) 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
April 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Television Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

Please note that you cannot sign up to review the article you yourself nominated for Good Article status. I'm not sure if that's what you meant to do, but that's what happened. Reviews cannot be done by the nominee or any of the significant contributors to the article.

The review has been unwound, and an independent reviewer will eventually sign up to review this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I obviously just wanted to create the page for reviewers so it would be noticed. 03 md 00:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what you did had the opposite effect, since the existence of a review page tells experienced reviewers that someone else has claimed the review. The review page is not created until someone decides to review a nominated article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 02:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria'

Last episode of this season to need reviewed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Change "The pilot episode of the television series Sports Night..." to ""Pilot" is the pilot episode of the television series Sports Night..."

"Few reviews can be found for the pilot episode of Sports Night, but those that can were positive about the show." I would just say "The episode received largely positive reviews." No need to mention the lack of a lot of reviews.

Done. 03 md 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe expand the plot section a bit. Right now, it's rather stubby.

Production section needs to be significantly expanded or at least re-arranged. As it stands right now, all we know is a bit of inspiration, a tagline, and its debut date and time. The latter should probably be moved to reception and paired with Nielsen viewing numbers.

Moved to reception. 03 md 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building off that, the second paragraph in "Production" is not even a paragraph at all, it's merely one sentence. This whole area needs to be significantly expanded.

Speaking of which, are viewing numbers available?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
In the info box, under 'Season 1 episode', there's only one episode listed, this episode, but it's a redline. I would fix it to look more like this or this.

I feel that the cast section should be merged into prose, much like how you did in the lead. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, per say, but I think it looks rather clunky.

Done. 03 md 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
You mention that the episode won/was nominated for several awards, but you don't provide a citation.

Although I know GA is not based on number of citations, I feel that this article should have quite a few more. What about info on viewing numbers, the before mentioned awards, and info on who directed and who wrote it.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I would expand Production significantly, and add reviews. I'd also recommend increasing the size of the plot section a bit, but that's not a huge deal. The former two, however, should most definitely be enlarged.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There's a lot of potential in this article, and it can be done. But I don't think this is quite up to GA snuff yet. However, if the production section can be increased, citations added, and maybe reviews and the plot be expanded, this has a good chance to pass. I will place this on hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking a lot better. There are still some places that are unsourced, but that can be fixed. For the casting section, I would recommend using the episode to cite the paragraph. The last sentence of the "Conception" paragraph is unsourced, as is the last part of "Awards and nominations". Finally, there's till that bizarre "Sports Night (season 1)" ugly redlink in the episode box that does nothing.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there. Cite the casting section using the episode (like this page does), the last part of Awards and nominations, and the last part of Conception, and I will pass it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think :) 03 md 18:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and review. 03 md 20:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]