Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

Pilot (House)[edit]

Nominator(s): David Fuchs
WP:FFA, delisted 17 September 2008, has not been on main page

This article was delisted about a month ago for comprehensiveness concerns; it barely touched on production and hardly had anything in the way of reception, weighing in at 1157 words with 11 references. With some work by Music2611 and I, it has been expanded by 700 words and 18 references; I now believe it meets all FA criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history, the article was defeatured only three weeks ago: just a note, in the future, you can simply request extra time to address the issues at FAR, so that FAC/FAR won't become revolving doors and paper shuffling. Extra time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree that this is a little strange. FAR exists for a reason. You began working on this literally within minutes of voting for its removal. Marskell (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Despite the above (wich is rather strange) the article is up to FA quality.--Music26/11 10:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the deadlinks (I've got pdfs of them offline but I couldn't use archive.org to generate an on-line archive), added the accessdate, and removed the questionable source (it was redundant with other sources anyhow.) As for the curly quotes, I assume you meant the quote box? I changed it to a different template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, meant the quote box. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

I found this recap by Sara Morrison from Television Without Pity, it may be handy if you want to expand the Reception section a bit further.--Music26/11 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about the reliability of the source, and also that since it's done in a sarcastic, snarky manner it would be hard to actually say what is criticism and what is just humor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call.--Music26/11 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's comments based on this version

  • Why are there wikilinked years in the infobox?
  • "Adler happily agrees to take her medication." - so, um, does she die? The section ends without a wrapping up of loose ends.
  • "pitched House to Fox as a medical detective show" - Fox is in all caps in the lead, be consistent
  • I doubt you're pointing to the right page when you link to invasion.

Giggy (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the above. The wikilinked dates are part of {{House (TV series) episode}}; I'll see about changing the template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; clearly it's close to FA quality and could have been fixed up at FAR, but whatever. Giggy (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, it seems to be close to FA quality. No obvious problems with the text of the article, and no clear reason to oppose, really. Anthøny (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Some of these are picky and may be ignored.

  • Mention the orange tint. There must be some reliable source on the Internet that mentions it. It is just about the first thing that anyone who has seen this episode notices.
  • Link to Television pilot and mention that the show is from the States, e.g. start with: The pilot episode of the American television series House, titled "Pilot", premiered on the FOX network on November 16, 2004.
  • It introduces the characters of Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians → It introduces the character Dr. Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie)—a maverick antisocial doctor—and his team of diagnosticians
  • Get rid of "young" in "The episode features Dr. House's attempts to diagnose a young grade-school teacher"
  • "Pilot"'s initial broadcast → The initial broadcast of "Pilot"
  • 62nd → sixty-second per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words (also in "Reception")
  • House and his actor have already been introduced in the lead so "(Hugh Laurie)" is unnecessary in the plot section
  • which forces → prompting • remove "first" as redundant
  • House, working in the hospital's clinic, treats → Working in the hospital's clinic, House treats
  • The second "House" in the conception and filming section needs to be italicized
  • was shot in Canada (while later episodes were shot on soundstages in California) → was shot in Canada; later episodes would be shot on soundstages in California per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Sentences
  • Mention that Flight of the Phoenix is a film in "actor Hugh Laurie was filming Flight of the Phoenix"
  • His or its? "[Laurie] apologized for his appearance (which Singer compared to a "bin Laden video")"
  • Did Wilson or House have "boyish" looks?
  • David Shore, Hugh Laurie, Dr. James Wilson (x3), Sherlock Holmes, Robert Sean Leonard, Omar Epps and Jennifer Morrison are all linked again in the production section
  • Which part in Numb3rs was Leonard planning to audition for?
  • Does "planning on auditioning" fall under User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing?
  • states → stated • didn't → did not • costar → co-star
  • BuddyTV should not be in italics
  • Three "Spencer"s in one sentence: change the second one to "he"
  • Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called House → Critics reacted positively to the character of House; Tom Shales of The Washington Post called him
  • Remove "positively and negatively" from "The episode's format was positively and negatively compared to a rival television series"
  • "Numb3rs" and "ABC's Invasion": Networks should either be mentioned or not
  • Why is Pilot italicized and without quotation marks?
  • Link to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series
  • Should music be mentioned, e.g. Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want", lack of Massive Attack's "Teardrop" on the DVD for this episode

I would support, but this article has nothing from the interviews in the extras from the DVD set and according to TVShowsonDVD.com, there are at least three good bonus features for this article. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; I believe I've dealt with all the concerns you mentioned above (except for the orange tint; I've found mentions of it, but only in a snarky review which may or may not be reliable and is a poor source for something like that.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per criterion 1b, as no information has been extracted from the DVD release. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support;Comments

Did it air anywhere else on the planet? The world wide look on the topic is missing, the British and the Canadian have to be added at least.--Stone (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was unable to find English-language reliable sources talking about the show outside of the US. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It placed outside the top 20 in Canadian ratings. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had found that previously, but it just seems weird to say "it didnt do this" rather than its actual performance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For it's UK terrestrial premiere it was shown on Five on June 9 2005 and got 1.8 million viewers (a 10 percent share). -Halo (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the info to the article, nice find! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by comment. Is there something in the reliable sources you have about the unaired version of this episode? It was about five minutes longer, and FOX included it free with several magazines to help publicise the show before it aired, and to solicit viewer opinion on a temporary web site they set up. Maybe relevant as marketing information if there's anything to be found in the sources? Steve T • C 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I found a lot of fan-sites and such had the information, but not any good reliable sources (I'm guessing most didn't notice that the preview episode was longer, or didn't note as such.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I felt the article was very close to FA when I did the GAN review a few weeks ago, and the changes since then[2] have been additionally beneficial. – sgeureka t•c 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. I find all the prose and references excellent, but I'm not convinced by the IDP of the necessity of this copyrighted imagery (Image:House-(pilot)---trachea.png).

    The rationale is "to illustrate the appearance of several of the main characters in the medium of the TV series; to illustrate some of the medical procedures as shown in the show." The image's performance in the supposed identification of characters and medicine in this particular episode is poor at best. Further, the article's prose adequately describes the action portrayed without going into any critical commentary on the copyrighted imagery as listed on the non-free content acceptable use guidelines.

    I don't see any need for any illustration by non-free media, but if there's a convincing rationale for this (or another) image, I don't see any reason not to support this as one of the best of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the image if necessary. It's whatever other editors think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the following images can meet the criteria. #1 ends up being the image used behind the words "House, M.D." for the show's title card; #2 shows House, some X-rays and the orange tint that I was talking about; #3 shows a scene that takes place in just about every episode, gives an idea of what the hospital's interior looks like and shows the relationship between House and Wilson, which is talked about in the production section; #4 also gives a glimpse to the design of the hospital, is a typical scene, has the orange tint, has movement and shows the main cast minus Cuddy. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not adverse to images per sé, but the significance to the particular images you linked woul dneed to be cited to reliable sources first. I'm browsing mobilly right now and can't discern any tint in the frame (orange or otherwise), but if there's reliable sourcing for it in a particular scene, that would be wholly appropriate for pertinent illustration, I should think. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the third image the characters walking in the hospital? Maybe then I could make a mention of the "walk and talk" aspect of the show (I have a source for that). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the images? I took these screenshots from the episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, i mean I have a source that talks about the 'walk and talk' aspects of House, in particular season 1, so if you had an image which shows that, it might be better defensible per NFCC? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually responding to the first sentence in pd_THOR's most recent post. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone ahead and removed the image. If at some later time one with a more defensible FUR can be found or added, so much the better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For whatever reason, there is a big blue bar in the infobox under Final diagnosis that completely obscures the text within it. Is it my browser - Firefox 3.0.3? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big blue bar, but it doesn't obscure the text (In Safari 3.x, at least). I've tried to make the episodes thing less garish, but it's a confusing template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the above references into the article. As to the tint, I can't see how that wouldn't run afoul of WP:OR. You may consider the tint orange, I might consider it brown; citing it to the episode seems a bit misleading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no experience at FAR, but does anyone think the Plot section is a little long? I guess it's more permissible to have a longer summary when you're doing a relatively in-depth discussion of a single work (as you do in FA), but this just caught my eye because I've had to cut plot summaries of entire series down to things about this length or shorter, and this summary does seem a little detailed. But again, I'm not familiar with FAR, and if you think this level of detail in the plot summary is necessary to impart understanding of the article then I have no complaints. —Politizer talk/contribs 05:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only three paragraphs; that's hardly an excessive plot summary anywhere. It's 483 words ,in the range than the guidelines at WP:TV state is a good size. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good, follows the criteria; and I see no other major or minor flaws. However, as mentioned before, information from the first season DVD would be much appreciated and make the article a lot more interesting. GO HOUSE

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with notes. I think recent edits have addressed the concerns I had at the FAR. The Emmy award sentence seems to be separated from its reference, and the award cited the "pilot" episode, which isn't very clear from the text here. Series awards don't always cite the first episode of a season, for example the Carnivàle nomination the same year as the House win. Gimmetrow 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'd like to fix whatever you're talking about, but I'm not really sure what's the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the description of the Emmy in the text here says "Christopher Hoag, who composed the music for "Pilot" and the first season of House, was nominated for a 2005 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore)." This implies the award is for the season and is only mentioned here because the music played in the pilot. Also, the ref for this line is on the following sentence, although it appears to me that following line is not supported by the Emmy award cite. (But I could be wrong on that.) Gimmetrow 03:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review The one free image currently in the article checks out fine. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pilot_(House)&oldid=1138469057"