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 17:53, 31 August 2007.

---

Pilot (Smallville)[edit]

I believe this article is basically knocking on the FA status' door, but that it needs some unbiased eyes to criticize everything that I've missed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:
  • The entire lead section is unsourced, which leads me to wonder if it's original research.
  • There are several grammar errors (e.g. "the WB" should be "The WB" (proper name) and there are commas missing on American dates).
  • I found the "plot" section non-fulfilling, it told me little about what actually happens in the episode (i.e. it's not comprehensive).
  • The grammar is inconsistent² (commas and full stops inside and outside quotation marks).
  • IMDb is not a reliable source, the credits can be modified by any registered user (see the edit button here). The WGA does furnish crew credits to the IMDb, but even so only those marked with "(WGA)" could be taken as reliable.
  • The article relies heavily on the book Smallville: The Official Companion Season 1 and the DVD commentary "Pilot" commentary by Al Gough, Miles Millar and David Nutter. I believe this could be taken as a copyright violation. The information should probably be cited to other reliable secondary sources.
  • The article should primarily rely on sources independent of the subject.
  • This external link should probably be removed, I'm not convinced it meets WP:EL:
    1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
    2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
    3. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  • I find some of the text to be awkward, for example "known simply as". It isn't "known simply as" as it "is".
• Hope this helps. Matthew 10:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Leads don't require citations. Alientraveller 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when? Could you please provide your source for that? Matthew 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything in the lead should also be mentioned later and should have citation there. Buc 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is. There is a citation for a quote that was used, now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Facts are not copyrighted. Alientraveller 10:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression/structure can. Matthew 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly you're just new to the FA process. Anyway, I'll assume good faith and not let this escalate. Alientraveller 11:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly you simply couldn't respond to my comments. And I'm not sure how good faith comes in to it. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could respond, but I'm not too bothered about correcting someone who wants to remain incorrect. Alientraveller 14:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you ;-). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big debate about the facts in the lead thing going on, and the last FAC I started Aquaman (TV program), even Raul said that it wasn't necessary. But, again..if you'll let me know what you think needs a source, then it's fine. As for the sources..you cannot restructure quotes. It's a quote no matter what you do, otherwise it isn't a quote any longer. Plus, the vast majority of my information came from the DVD commentary, which is straight from the horse's mouth and there isn't any restructuring to it. All my secondary, third party sources are in the place they should be...the reaction section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to let me know what you're challenging, since i've always been a believer in the "leads don't need sources since they should summarize". Obviously I'm not summarizing good enough if something is challengeable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • I'm honestly not interested in Raul's opinion, what I'm interested in is what the policy/guidelines state. Nobody has presented one that supports your position. "If you'll let me know what you think needs a source, then it's fine", this is what I think needs sourcing: Any material that is likely to be challenged. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to play a teeter-totter game with you. Either tell me what you are challenging, or drop it. You cannot say "verify whatever is challenged" (since it is ALL stated in the body already, with sources) and then not tell me what you are challenging.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole lead, like I said "The entire lead section is unsourced". Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Please point to specifics you think are controversial enough that they need citations in the lead; considering that the article isn't that it doens't take much to scroll down. WP:LEAD says it must conform to WP:V, but it also says that citations are only necessary for thing likely to be challeneged, or quotes. I'm sorry, but being an ass and saying "I challenge the whole thing" doesn't work. What do you feel is controversial enough that it needs a citation. The airdate (which I put a source in the infobox for ya), writers, directors, basic production information...none of that is controversial enough to need a citation. Though, I think I'll put a citation next to "Middle America", because that was a quote. [which I just did].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixing the The WB and commas in the dates. I only saw one date without commas..please let me know if there were others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• The plot states the basic plot of the show, with very little details, since any neccessary details for context are mentioned elsewhere. It was heavily trimmed because of the peer review it had, where Awadewit through it wasn't succint enough. I mean, I'd rather it wasn't like "Pilot (House)", where the plot outweighs the real world content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Well it's too basic then, so much so that it just seems like useless minutiae to me. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's you. Again, I'm not going to play this back and forth game. Either tell me exactly what you think needs a bit more explaination, or drop it. If I add more, you can simply go "that's too much". Tell me exactly what you think needs better explaination.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • I think the whole section would probably be better rewritten (500-1,000 words). But if you don't wish to do this, then you could try adding some more detail (like stating the important elements of the episode). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1000 words? LMAO. Film articles do not even recommend that, and you are saying that a 42 minute television show needs 1000 words? This is why we have the Wikia link at the bottom, it has all the words you'll ever need. I did state important elements of the episode, and just that. I didn't state tiny details. Again, if you have a specific thing you think needs better explaination, let me know, otherwise simply stating "put 1000 words there" isn't going to help or happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed all the quote marks and punctuation.
• So you'd rather I use this IMDb link for Annette O'Toole's role in Superman III?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • "IMDb is not a reliable source", so no, I'm saying you should find a reliable source. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDb is reliable for filmographies, as it's easily verifiable via the credits. If you like, I'll simply cite the DVD for that film. Her role in that film isn't even controversial, so challenging something that can be verified by clicking "closing credits" in a DVD chapter selection menu isn't really a concern of this article's quality or reliableness. But I've duplicated a reference that mentioned it as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • No it isn't, IMDb is user submitted. So, "Because IMDb watchers say so" isn't a good enough source. You could cite the movie, but it's a primary source. I'd preferably prefer a secondary source (they are preferred over primary sources according to policy). I've even gone to the trouble of locating two sources which appear to be reliable (click and click). Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The information is just interviews, primary sources, and not Paul Simpson's personal interpretations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• We cannot tell people "sorry, this doesn't fit Wikipedia, it should be transwikied to a Wikia or similer site"...but then say "but you cannot link to it from here".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • Who's we? I wouldn't tell somebody to transwiki content to Wikia. Matthew 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, guidelines say this, but then again, you're the one that doesn't think we should follow guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
      • Which guideline says to transwiki to Wikia? Matthew 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) mentions transwiking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• Support This is what a single episode article looks like. It is well written, covers all major aspects, is well cited, neutral, and stable. It follows the relevant style guidelines, including WP:WAF, with an over all real world approach to the information. Even reading the plot section, it is clear that this is a work of fiction, especially since it includes the commentary about the writing. The only non-free image has an acceptable rationale, and the free image is quite appropriate. The article does not lose focus, and keeps the information very well organized. Jay32183 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jay. Cliff smith 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jay as well. Changed "made" to "rendered", but that was more a matter of personal taste than a fault. Not much else to say really, Jay summed it up in a nutshell. :) Paul730 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Bignole and Jay - the article is exceptionally well-written. Whatever clown thought cites are needed in the Lead needs some re-education before they contribute to discussions at this level. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My eye spies some copy-editing to be done, so I will do that. Otherwise, the article appears appropriately broad in content and also well-referenced. If there's anything that comes up during my c/e revision, I'll mention it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not sure any of the second paragraph is really notable enough to be in the lead. Buc 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. The second paragraph is there is provide a summary of the production. It was something requested in the peer review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with comments:
  • It says "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot's debut." Based on what the sources say, shouldn't it say "8.4 million viewers watched the series' debut" or "8.4 million viewers watched the pilot?" It sounds like 8.4 watched the first ten minutes and then turned off the television (which could be what happened). Then it says "3.9 million viewers" watched the pilot but I don't see a source.
    • Well, the pilot has aired many times, so "debut" would insinuate that it was the first time that got the 8.4. The 3.9 million is part of the source that follows the 3.8 million information. It would have been a bit overdone if I linked one sentence and linked the following sentence with the same source. Maybe we can trim the wording and put in a semicolon, so that it's known it's part of the same statement. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, disregard what I said about the 3.9. I never understood what those share numbers meant, but if that means that 3.9/8.4 million viewers were adults 18-49 then it's fine the way it is. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does, though I've never been able to read that stuff to be honest. I tried to make it as understandable to casual readers as possible. Anyway, I connected the two so that it is more clear they came from one source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After viewing the pilot DVD, when it was released in Canada, Conrad stated,..." Does it matter where it was released?
    • Maybe not, maybe so. It wasn't released in the US as a single disc for a long time. I'll trim it down to just him viewing the pilot. I guess really, how he viewed it and when he viewed it are irrelevant to the basic idea that "he viewed it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • The single "further reading" link looks out of place. Could there be room made for it in "external links" or "references?"
    • It isn't referenced, but EL might be an acceptable place for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • There is no mention of the unaired pilot. (One of the guys I used to go to school with guest starred in Smallville as young Lex Luthor and was paid $500 CAD to shave his head. I believe it was in the unaired pilot, which I am downloading right now.)
    • It's briefly mentioned in the casting section. There isn't anything about that I've found beyond the tid bit about the recasting of Martha Kent. I've never read anything about a recasting of Lex Luthor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, it was a great article. Good work. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was a bit confused. It states that the pilot "follows Clark as he...attempts to stop a vengeful student from killing the Smallville High students." That's a bit vague. Whom does the Smallville High students refer to? All of them? And on a minor note: Smallville High School students might be better (and less informal). Since this was in the lead, I was led to believe that this was crucial in the plot of the pilot, and would be explained further. However, when I got to the Plot section, this was discussed in one throw-away sentence at the end, which doesn't really illuminate much more than the vague sentence in the lead. Also, it was a bit jarring to me to be reading about Gough and Millar in the plot section; those sentences broke up the narrative thread of the section. Finally, please copy edit the entire article. I don't think the best of Wikipedia should feature typos and simple grammar mistakes, especially comma abuse. For example:

Gough and Millar had five months for casting, but their primary focus was initially on finding an actor to play Clark Kent. They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, <-- no comma should be here for the role of Lana Lang, and liked it so much →that they immediately showed her to the network.[4] Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition for the role of Clark Kent, eventually accepted the opportunity to be apart of the show.[8] It was David Nutter who finally convinced Welling to read the script for the pilot, and found Welling's picture in a photo album at the casting director's office. <-- Huh? What's this clause doing in this sentence? Welling's manager did not want him to take the role, <-- no comma should be here because it could hurt his feature film career, but Welling liked the script and agreed to come in for an audition. 69.202.54.91 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah, the "vengeful student" attempts to kill all of them. If you think "school" would help, ok. It was a "B" story, that wasn't the focus of the episode. I've added a bit more explaining his motives for killing people, and why he was after the whole school basically. Took out the "initially". Removed those extra commas. That clause wasn't supposed to be there. It was supposed to say "after he found..." I've corrected that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These fixes needed:

• "thought was "amazing."[9]For one of his auditions" - space needed after ref
• Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes regarding dash usage. Em dashes should be unspaced. "18-49 male demographic" needs an en dash
• "5 months" - Whole numbers under 11 should be spelled out as words. Epbr123 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Taken care of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Superman myth - this time showing us" and dashes in ref titles still to fix. Epbr123 11:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I get them all that time?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The dashes you placed in the ref titles should have either been spaced en dahes or unspaced em dashes. Epbr123 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought they were already "spaced en dashes" before I just changed them. Ok, this is becoming a bit too confusing. Is it possible for you to correct it, since it's such a small issue and the article isn't that large that it would take that long to do it? I'm aware it isn't your obligation to do so, but I think it's clear that I don't get the "en dash" "em dash" thing, since I've tried correcting, and from your comment, I'm just making it worse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.