| Revision as of 14:20, 5 October 2006 editThe Filmaker (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,873 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 8 October 2006 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Self-nom. After working on the entire ''] ]'', I decided to work on something smaller. I decided to try to get the first episode article FA. It has received a copyedit from ] and has been rated as a ] and has had ]. <s>I will address what might seem to be a major flaw in the article, as a user may ask about providing the ratings for the episode. I can honestly say that I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find anything on the ratings for the show. If anyone can provide a site that does or may have them I would be extremely grateful.</s> Otherwise, I think that this article fulfills the FA criteria. ] 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Restarting the nomination () The old nominations made a number of referneces to a medical glossary (which rightly appears to have been deleted). ] 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per my own nom. ] 00:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''', As episode articles go, this is very good. But neither of these sentences are clear: | |||
| **"Cuddy attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's clinic which he despises." | |||
| **"The dialogue in 'House' attempts to use real medical hypothesis of the patient's condition." ] 01:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Both sentences have been rewritten. ] 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I helped copyedit this article, and think it is very good, it is nice to blaze new trails in featured articles :) ] 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *In general, it looks nice. Quick question before I support. Later episodes mention the Plot Arc development, but in the pilot are there any foreshadowings towards future plot developments? ] (<small>]</small>) 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **The format of having sections on arc developments is non-comprehensive, the format of this article is not meant to follow that of the other articles. Any plot or character developments that could be relevent to the rest of the series can be found inside the Synopsis section. Such as House's dislike of the clinic and his explanation of his limp. ] 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***OK, just checking. '''Support'''. BTW, great TV show, I must say. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The word "episode" in the article title seems unnecessary. The format recommended by the television project would have the title ]. ] 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **The article has been renamed as such. ] 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Support''' The article is comprehensive and avoids useless trivia, speaking from experience, that is hard to maintain for this type of article. The references are in limited number, but the article is short, so it seems appropriate. The only complaint I could have at this point isn't worthy of objecting, or even remaining neutral. That complaint is that the Season 1 template is causing a self-referential link, which I'm sure anyone familiar with template code can fix. ] 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Fixed. ;) ] 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>(Conditional) Oppose</s> The article (Reception section) should include information about the episode's original ratings. ] 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **As I stated in the nomination for this article, I've searched high and low for the original ratings for the episode but have turned up nothing. If someone provides a link to a website that may have them, than I will gladly include them. ] 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just take a look at the main House article: ]. ] 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've added info on the ratings to the reception section. ] 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''Neutral''' I think the article is rather short overall, though I'm not sure whether there is more information available. ] 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Short and sweet. Couldn't find anything out of place, though this article doesn't quite tread in the domains most other articles fail. — ] (]) 13:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Support''' a little too short I believe ,but at the same time I doubt you can extend an article like this much further.Citations are done nicely and overall it is written good ] 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Support'''. Well written and well organized; not long but very much to the point.] 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Object'''. A fourth of the article is a medical glossary. Another paragraph is a loose, OR-ish (even if referenced) comparison to Sherlock Holmes. The sentence "Singer commented on how well this "American actor" was able to grasp the character, unbeknownst to him at the time, Laurie is British." Most of the rest is a staid plot sypnosis. Respectfully, I contend that this is not Misplaced Pages's best work. And the topic very much limits its potential; how about a FAC on the ''series'' House?. –] ] 01:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Your objection is inactionable. I can't do anything about the medical glossary being a fourth of the article, short of expanding the article with useless trivia. "OR-ish (even if referenced)" the definition of OR is unreferenced material, this material is referenced. You haven't completed your objection to Singer's comment on Laurie the "american actor". Again, I can't do anything about the synopsis than I can with medical glossary. To simply say "this is not Misplaced Pages's best work" is again, inactionable. And an article's potential is not based on it's limits inside of it's topic, as long as the article is thorough on whatever that topic might be. Featured articles are not chosen based on topic. ] 02:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support'''. Short, well-referenced, the sentences flow easily (thanks to my copyeditting), succinct. You may want another screenshot... ] may be able to help you out there... I know there's one in the infobox, but one more can't hurt... Whatever. It's up to you. ], ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ]</sub> Save ]! 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' very good article ] 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' whilst I fail to understand why not make House itself featured, I have to recognise great work nonetheless. ] 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' | |||
| **The comparison to Sherlock Holmes is original research, sourced only to a fansite. A fansite's theory, unreferenced anywhere else, isn't material for an encyclopedia. | |||
| **The "medical terms" section is...well, a mess. It's referenced to a half-dozen pages that have nothing to do with House, it's unnecessary (why not just wikilink these terms from the plot summary?), it bloats the article...ugh. This is a list of trivia, albeit not a bulleted list; there's no need to define every single medical term used in the episode. | |||
| **The behind the scenes section is sourced entirely to a special feature on the House DVD, save for a single quote from Inside The Actors' Studio. | |||
| *:The only section that is well-referenced to something other than primary sources is the critical reception section. This just isn't FA material. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've added a reference for the Holmes references from the Philidelphia Inquirer. I also added another reference to the BTS section, making the DVD references the minority. And I've removed the medical terms section. ] 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:50, 8 October 2006
Pilot (House)
Restarting the nomination (Old nom) The old nominations made a number of referneces to a medical glossary (which rightly appears to have been deleted). Raul654 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)