Talk:Pilot (Will & Grace)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The episode was written by David Kohan and Max Mutchnick, and directed by James Burrows." - Should really be in the first paragraph, per WP:MOSTV. The first paragraph of the lead should introduce those basic identifiers of the episode.

   Y Done.

   In the plot section, in the first paragraph, it just jumps from Will and Grace on the phone to Grace appearing at Will's house. There needs to be some type of transitionary dialogue there.

   Y I think I got it.

   "After the proposal, Will and Grace engage in a phone conversation, which leads to her to reveal to Will that Danny proposed. Grace goes to Will's apartment and asks for his blessing on their marriage, revealing she accepted his proposal." - Another one that is kind of clunky. It's jumping ahead and I thought that she had already discussed the engagement with him on the phone.

   Y Yeah, she told him over the phone, but goes to his place for his blessing.

   "With the intention of apologizing to Grace, Will shows up at Grace Adler Designs the following day. Karen reveals to Will that Grace has gone to City Hall to get married. However, Grace shows up, informing Will she could not go through the wedding, and leaving Danny at the altar, realizing that Will was right. He reassures Grace that she will find someone eventually." -- Where is all of this taking place. It's jumping from Will's to the Design shop to City Hall, and I'm not even sure he went to any of those places from the eventual wording. The plot section needs a good copyedit, with some clarifications to those scenes.

   Y I think I got it.

   "The pair met while studying at Beverly Hills High School, and went on to work in television show's such as Dream On (1990–96) and Boston Common (1996–97)." - Probably don't need their background. They have pages of their own that should discuss that.

   Y Done.

   "..searched a long time for the actor.." - How long is "a long time"?

   Y I changed the sentence to "It took longer than usual for Mutchnick and Kohan to find an actor..." Is it better (or worse)? TheLeftorium 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm still wondering what's "the usual amount"? What does the source say? If the source is vague, then I would quote the source exactly, that way it's clear that you aren't the one being vague.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I removed the sentence from the article. TheLeftorium 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   "Before Megan Mullally was given the role of Karen, she had previously been cast as a series regular on shows such as The Ellen Burstyn Show, My Life and Times, and Rachel Gunn. Mullally guest starred on many other shows, including Ned & Stacey, on which she first worked with Messing.[22] Mullally informed her agent that she did not want to do any more sitcoms or auditions for sitcoms, during the time that Will & Grace came around." -- I assume these shows listed are sitcoms. If so, it may help if they were tied to the succeeding sentence a little better. Maybe introduce her disinterest to do sitcoms anymore, and then identify that she has a history of appearing in them. Otherwise, it just looks like irrelevant bio info on the actress, not suitable for this page.

   Y I think I got it.

   "As much as the show's eventual appeal disproved much of its initial criticism, the show continually dealt with the criticism for having a limited view of the gay community and for reinforcing stereotypes when some felt it should have torn them down." --What does this have to do with the pilot episode?

   Y Removed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "...also known as "Love & Marriage"" - Says whom?

   Y Says NBC.

   Looking at that page, and then checking TVGuide and TV-MSN, I'm wondering where the "The" in "The Pilot" comes from. Those three sources are listing the title as "Pilot", which would require a page move.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Done. TheLeftorium 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   "...Will's outrageous friend" - What makes him "outrageous"? That's a POV term that would require a citation.

   Y Removed "outrageous".

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   I'm a little uneasy about using TVHeaven as a source. On their "About Us" page they admit to using Wikipedia, IMDb, Findarticles.com, AngelFire, and other unreliable sources that we don't allow. Since their articles don't use inline citations to let us know what information is coming from where, it makes it hard to accept that website as a source for anything.

   The page currently has 1 dead link.

   Y I removed the TVHeaven source and replaced the dead link.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I wonder if the reception section is biased toward the positive. 2/3 of the section basically talks about how great the pilot is, even the last 1/3 isn't really negative but merely apprehension on whether the show can keep it's steam. Then you have the giant quote box promoting the episode. It appears heavily saturated with positive reviews, and doesn't really provide a balance of opinions, per WP:NPOV.

   Y I searched forever and I could only find one "negative" review. I think what's there is good enough; after all, it did receive mostly positive reviews. Also, I shortened down the quote box to make it less "promoting". TheLeftorium 15:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Please review my comments and address each issue (whether by editing or rebuttles on this page). I have the page watchlisted, both this one and the article page, so I will see when you have addressed all concerns. It was overall a good page, and a good read, there are just some issues with some of the content. I reserve the right to fail the GAN should the concerns not be addressed in some capacity within 7 days.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! ThinkBlue and I will fix your concerns ASAP. :) TheLeftorium 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There were still some issues with the plot section's prose. I've cleaned it up some (I removed the bit about New York...it seemed to have no barring on the rest of the episode and helped to make the opening line less clunky). I added Danny's actor's name, based on the character page, but I'm not sure if they actually showed an actor for the role..since I didn't see the episode and you didn't already have his name listed. If he wasn't there, then just remove the actor's name. The rest looks good. I cannot fault the page for not having more neg. reviews if they do not exist. Though, I would try and contact any editor you know who had access to NexisLexis (or whatever it's called), because there could be some newspaper articles that did cover the pilot in a negative light. Just a thought before going to FAC. Other than that, good work. Pass. P.S. I left a hidden question in the plot, for something that needed clarifying. You've done well to work on all issues in a timely manner that I am going to promote the page knowing you'll address that minor issue. It was basically asking how Grace decided not to stay with Danny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I have accesses to NewsBank (same as NexisLexis) which I used to search for sources. Couldn't find any negative reviews though. I'll let ThinkBlue fix the plot issue as I am not an expert on Will & Grace (actually, this is the only episode I've seen). ;P TheLeftorium 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)