| Revision as of 04:54, 11 January 2007 editGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 edits closed← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:18, 17 January 2007 edit undoGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm GimmeBot tagging closed FAC discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!--FAtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following is an archived discussion of a {{{type|]}}}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| The article was promoted. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Self-nomination. I am restarting an ] that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a ] and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as ] and ]. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. ] 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | Self-nomination. I am restarting an ] that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a ] and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as ] and ]. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. ] 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 88: | Line 94: | ||
| **** That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following ''"The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff."'' ] 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | **** That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following ''"The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff."'' ] 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***** Further comments on article talk page. ''This discussion is closed.'' ] 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | ***** Further comments on article talk page. ''This discussion is closed.'' ] 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FAbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot--> | |||
Revision as of 06:18, 17 January 2007
- 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted.
Pilot (House)
Self-nomination. I am restarting an old nomination that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as User:Judgesurreal777 and User:Hunterd. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. The Filmaker 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support This is better than the copyvio version, which I supported not knowing it was a copyvio. Jay32183 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your news sources aren't correctly cited (because you used cite web instead of cite news - we need author, title, publication date, etc.). Wikilinking is sporadic and needs to be thoroughly reviewed - for example, why is vicodin wikilinked, while cocaine is not? Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've implemented all of your suggestions. :) The Filmaker 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What about putting a short summary of the reception of the episode in the lead? Gzkn 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support I like the article and think it's well written and sourced, but I don't know if it's what I'd call Featured Content.Ganfon 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Object—Sorry, the writing is so bad in places that it doesn't show on the radar screen. And it's boring, in my view. Here's an example:
- "House agrees to take the case still believing it to be a brain tumor, but open to other ideas. Soon thereafter, House is approached at the elevator by Dr. Lisa Cuddy —the administrator of the hospital—who attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's walk-in clinic, a task he loathes because of the incomplexity of the cases brought to him;"
- Um, the grammar doesn't work in the first sentence.
- "Soon thereafter"? Which century is this? "at the elevator"—"At" is vague.
- What is "incomplexity"?
- That would be "uncomplicated nature", which is what the article now calls it.--Rmky87 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It has to fail 1a throughout; the lead fails 2a. Tony 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support
Objectper Tony, some other examples (please go through the article more thoroughly):- Later, when House's team attempt to perform an MRI on Adler, they discover that his authorization has been revoked. I though Adler was a woman… or perhaps we should be more clear that House is the subject? Plus, attempt -> attempts (American english should be used).
- allowing him authorization Shouldn't it be "giving"?
- can not
- Laurie later stated that his original impression was that the show was about Dr. James Wilson, as the script referred to him as a doctor with "boyish" looks, assumed this to be the star and that Dr. House was the "sidekick".
- once again praising Laurie as well as the other actors calling them, "calling them" unneeded.
- for the same aforementioned week redundant word
- Outside of the grammar, it is also a bit on the short side. AZ t 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Better now; some other minor nitpicks I noticed while reading thru the article:
- However, wishing to die with dignity, Adler refuses to accept more treatments unless there is evidence that the related diagnoses are correct, but House attempts to persuade her otherwise. Persuade her from what? From accepting more treatments, or that the diagnosis is correct?
- in the pilot Shouldn't this be capitalized? The "the" is not necessary either.
- Both share and ability to come typo
- Fixed. :) The Filmaker 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- which attracted 5.45 million viewers; the 78th most-watched show for the same week The second clause can't stand independently, so it should be a comma, not a semicolon
- Ref#10 is missing some information.
- New ref added covering missing information. The Filmaker 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, should've been more clear. What I meant was the title, date of access, date of last update, publisher, etc. (see {{Cite web}}). AZ t 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed refs. :) The Filmaker 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, should've been more clear. What I meant was the title, date of access, date of last update, publisher, etc. (see {{Cite web}}). AZ t 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- New ref added covering missing information. The Filmaker 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- About the comprehensiveness of the article, was there no negative criticism of the episode? The entire reception section places the episode in a positive light. AZ t 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Object. The plot summary has no references. Some of the other sources are about the show in general, not this particular episode. There do not appear to be enough sources on the topic, this particular episode, to make a complete encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- The plot summary has no references.
- Plot summaries of entertainment articles do not require references.
- Some of the other sources are about the show in general, not this particular episode.
- As long as they cite the particular information it is referencing, then it does not matter what the source is "about".
- There do not appear to be enough sources on the topic, this particular episode, to make a complete encyclopedia article.
- Everything in the article is cited. To object over the number of references, is to object over the length of the article. The length I can do nothing about, therefore this part of your objection is inactionable. The Filmaker 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Notability regarding some of these issues. First, the triviality of the references is related to their reliability; an article about another topic that has trivial mentions of this topic was not authored by someone who researched or had a working knowledge of this topic, nor was it edited or fact-checked by someone who checked whether the trivial parts of it were correct. Second, a complete article on this subject would need some information about the initial formation of the show/casting, and about the themes of the show etc. and its relation to the history of the show and to the history of television shows of this kind. This article does not have this. It is not a complete article, and the reason you "can do nothing about" the length of the article is because there are not sufficient sources on the topic (that is, it is not notable independent of the main television series), which are necessary to make a comprehensive encyclopedia article, which a featured article must be. —Centrx→talk • 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The USA Today and ABC Media are not reliable sources? — Deckiller 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Notability regarding some of these issues. First, the triviality of the references is related to their reliability; an article about another topic that has trivial mentions of this topic was not authored by someone who researched or had a working knowledge of this topic, nor was it edited or fact-checked by someone who checked whether the trivial parts of it were correct. Second, a complete article on this subject would need some information about the initial formation of the show/casting, and about the themes of the show etc. and its relation to the history of the show and to the history of television shows of this kind. This article does not have this. It is not a complete article, and the reason you "can do nothing about" the length of the article is because there are not sufficient sources on the topic (that is, it is not notable independent of the main television series), which are necessary to make a comprehensive encyclopedia article, which a featured article must be. —Centrx→talk • 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Everything in the article is cited. To object over the number of references, is to object over the length of the article. The length I can do nothing about, therefore this part of your objection is inactionable. The Filmaker 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The plot summary has no references.
- Object. This aricle is not or will never be a featured article because it's about ONE episode. If you nominate the House series as a whole, I would be very surprised if you didn't get it. Mr. Crabby 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Inactionable, and untrue objection that should be disregarded. The Filmaker 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
ObjectComment: The entire "Synopsis" section has no references. This is half the article; it needs referencing. Above, it is claimed that "Plot summaries of entertainment articles do not require references", but how is the reader to know the plot summary is accurate? I note that housemd-guide.com is used for one footnote already. If this is indeed a WP:RS, this section could at least reference this synopsis. A few sentences in need of attention:- "the tapeworm inside of her reproduced, resulting in larvae to travel into Adler's blood stream, infesting her brain."
- "anymore" -> "any more" ?
- the sentence with "aforementioned" (previously mentioned by Az) has a lot of clauses. Could it possibly be made into two or three sentences?
- Gimmetrow 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- The reference for the plot synopsis is the episode itself. Jay32183 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Raul654 (the Featured Article Director) made this statement in an FAC (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/V for Vendetta (film)): "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." The Filmaker 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very well, "no reference is necessary" but that also doesn't mean they are forbidden. What about the other points? Gimmetrow 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your other concerns have been addressed. :) The Filmaker 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very well, "no reference is necessary" but that also doesn't mean they are forbidden. What about the other points? Gimmetrow 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Raul654 (the Featured Article Director) made this statement in an FAC (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/V for Vendetta (film)): "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." The Filmaker 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think this article currently falls short of the "comprehensive" requirement. It's great that casting has a story behind it - this sort of drama makes it easier to write interesting prose. I would like to know the writer's inspiration for this pilot - that could be another great story. Some details on production would be nice: where was it shot? how much did it cost? Did the network consider this a strong pilot and pick up the series prior to airing, after airing, or only for a few episodes at first? How does 7million viewers/62nd compare to other pilot episodes? Minor technical issue - the references still do not have author and publication dates listed (Sandy mentioned this before). Gimmetrow 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most of your suggestions are on information that is not available and I would have no way of finding out, short of interviewing the writers and producers myself. The only suggestion you made that I could possibly incorporate would be the comparsion of the ratings to other pilots, however we're straying into other territory. The article already refers to the show's ratings as a success. To go into further detail would cause the article to be redundant and contain information that more belongs in article about Pilot episodes than an article about one specific Pilot. The Filmaker 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I will fix the problem with the references that Sandy brought up. The Filmaker 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed the references that Sandy brought up. The Filmaker 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what else to say then, other than it doesn't feel "complete". For instance: doesn't this episode have some name other than "pilot", or maybe an alternate version? Perhaps not, or perhaps it's not citable to a reliable source, but it leaves the impression that aspects of the pilot are missing from the article. Gimmetrow 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say either, because your now comment is inactionable. I can only suspect that the article feels incomplete because it's lacks information that other entertainment articles have. However the reason it lacks that information is because it is not available. I would support the article, because while it seems incomplete, it is not. It is comprehensive. The Filmaker 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- The reference for the plot synopsis is the episode itself. Jay32183 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Surely this should be called Pilot (House episode) to remove ambiguity? I was expecting to find out about something to do with pilots in houses. Halo 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is the correct style for Episode articles per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television). The Filmaker 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then that style is broken. -Halo 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, the name is correct. The parenthetical disambiguator is used to differentiate an article title from other things of the same name on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing else associated with "House" that could be called "Pilot". Misplaced Pages does not use hypothetical disambiguation. Jay32183 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's ambiguous - I was thinking in terms of something like Pilot lights, which /are/ located in houses. Usually, it wouldn't be a problem, but "House" is a bit of an unusual show name creating ambiguity. -05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Pilot (House)" is not a plausible search term for "pilot lights". You could be thinking of a house named Pilot, but that would be "Pilot (house)" with the lowercase "h". Jay32183 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's ambiguous - I was thinking in terms of something like Pilot lights, which /are/ located in houses. Usually, it wouldn't be a problem, but "House" is a bit of an unusual show name creating ambiguity. -05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, the name is correct. The parenthetical disambiguator is used to differentiate an article title from other things of the same name on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing else associated with "House" that could be called "Pilot". Misplaced Pages does not use hypothetical disambiguation. Jay32183 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then that style is broken. -Halo 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is the correct style for Episode articles per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television). The Filmaker 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Object - Aside from the name (which is just something I thought was weird), I don't think the article is long or comprehensive enough to be featured. I found there were questions I was asking which the article doesn't even touch for me to call it comprehensive (How good is the episode medically? How does the ratings for this show compare to other show's pilot episodes? When was it show internationally? Any differences or inconsistancies from future episodes like other pilots? What was Robin Tunney previously in? How was it advertised and promoted before it was shown? What did it establish about House's vicodin addiction - barely mentioned in the article yet vital to the show?). -Halo 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have not made a rebuttal to the last explanation by Jay32183 until then, I can't see why I should change the title.
- I've explained why comparison between Pilots is venturing into other waters above.
- Any differences or inconsistancies from future episodes like other pilots? nothing that can be cited.
- What was Robin Tunney previously in? not relevant to this article.
- How was it advertised and promoted before it was shown? again, this a broad idea. Marketing campaigns are not traditionally discussed in the media. I have no way finding anything out, and no way of citing.
- What did it establish about House's vicodin addiction - barely mentioned in the article yet vital to the show? more relevant to the article on the full series. The vicodin addiction is explained to the extent it is explained in the episode.
- Most of your suggestions, I have no way of finding out and then no way of citing. Your objection, at this point, is inactionable. The Filmaker 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your comments. I think this definitely is not a featured quality article, as it's just not comprehensive or detailed enough - I'd expect a featured article of this sort to compare to something like a better The Simpsons Archive capsule in detail and overall quality. I also pointed out that the name wasn't something I was objecting to, it's just something I found unusual. I know for a fact that at least one of my comments is very "actionable" - for something like the accuracy you could cite . It also doesn't even /mention/ the unaired pilot which I feel is a massive oversight. I think, generally, this is a substandard article that certainly does not represent the best work on Misplaced Pages. It's just a generic, marginally above average, episode article, of which there are literally thousands on Misplaced Pages. -Halo 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- More comments. For the music Emmy, it would be better to cite emmys.org rather than imdb. Regarding "comprehensive", I think there is more information out there. No review or critic questioned the ethics of breaking into a patient's house? And what is this about an "unaired pilot" with extra footage? Gimmetrow 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC) This page mentions some points that could be used for expansion, eg. a title for the episode, and the music variations. Gimmetrow 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The old copyvio version was full of things like that, as you can sort of see here. It had sections on plot arc development, a medical notes section that included an explanation of the medical terms used and that explained the references to the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study and Josef Mengele, functioning much like the "Allusions" section of the tv.com page.--Rmky87 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- ...which were removed for being unencyclopedic.--Rmky87 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I've mentioned alternate versions of the pilot (different scenes and variations in music), a name for the pilot, and using appropriate references. Are you dismissing these as "things like that"? I never mentioned anything about medical terms or "allusions". Gimmetrow 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your request for a something-or-other on "music variations" sounded far too similar for my tastes. And the FOX Broadcasting Company is not aware of any official title besides "Pilot" for this episode. I am sure that I've seen reviewers who would question the ethics of breaking and entering a patient's home. Unfortunately, the people at Television Without Pity aren't professionals. Hopefully, some professional critic has bothered with this. Using the official website for the Emmys is an excellent idea, though.--Rmky87 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I've mentioned alternate versions of the pilot (different scenes and variations in music), a name for the pilot, and using appropriate references. Are you dismissing these as "things like that"? I never mentioned anything about medical terms or "allusions". Gimmetrow 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- ...which were removed for being unencyclopedic.--Rmky87 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The old copyvio version was full of things like that, as you can sort of see here. It had sections on plot arc development, a medical notes section that included an explanation of the medical terms used and that explained the references to the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study and Josef Mengele, functioning much like the "Allusions" section of the tv.com page.--Rmky87 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the record for anyone who reads this later. There are no suitable citations for the supposed "un-aired pilot". The link given above is to a site similar to Misplaced Pages. A site where any user can edit the article. This is not a suitable citation. The Filmaker 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- FAC discussion is closed, but if you wish to discuss it further: the article here still cites imdb. If imdb is a citable source, then this refers to the unaired pilot. Gimmetrow 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That element of IMDB is not overseen by administrators, it is also an equivalent to Misplaced Pages. The Filmaker 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The only parts of imdb I am aware of that are not fan submitted are WGA credits. Gimmetrow 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following "The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff." The Filmaker 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further comments on article talk page. This discussion is closed. Gimmetrow 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following "The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff." The Filmaker 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The only parts of imdb I am aware of that are not fan submitted are WGA credits. Gimmetrow 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.