This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Layout guidelines are very clear that sections and paragraphs should not be too long, but neither – as here – too short. It needs to be tidied up a bit, but also, as we'll return to later, fleshed out.
This is way too thin for a pilot episode on a series that has received as much attention as this one. GAs don't need to be comprehensive, as FAs do, but they need to be broad in coverage, which this is not sufficiently.
I will give more details later, but these are my main objections. Lampman (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree it could be fleshed out a bit as single paragraphs are against Wiki standards, however you don't want to give every plot point of the episode and "ruin" the viewing. That being said, I also agree that some images could be added here about the episode, perhaps of the creators or the cast, maybe even a generic map of the actual house location? Yes, this is a fairly popular show and its respective articles need a bit more meat to them. I do like the set-up of the discerning timelines. — WylieCoyote (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There's been a lot of debate about this, but the general consensus is that if people don't want spoilers, they shouldn't read the plot summary. That being said, the plot summary is about the right size, though it needs to be reorganized a bit. Lampman (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's a more thorough review, with more specific suggestions for expansion:
The lead needs to be fuller: there is very little on production, the plot summary could be a couple of lines longer (maybe mention Constance), and there is nothing on critical reception at all.
The plot could perhaps be a little bit longer, since this is a pilot with much weight on exposition. It also needs better layout, with longer paragraphs. It would probably be better to write it thematically – following individual story lines through – rather than chronologically, the way it largely is now.
"A young Addie": she is not introduced until the next section, but she is presented as if she's familiar to the reader.
It's not really necessary with sub-headings, it becomes too fragmented. Likewise, "Promotion" could be included in "Production", it’s too short to warrant a separate section.
You can wikify in the main text something that's been wikified in the lead (see WP:OVERLINK). This applies to the names of the creators.
"Casting" is too summary: what do the actors say about it themselves? There’s something in the Connie Britton interview you’ve used, for instance, here’s a couple other ones I found: , ,  You could also introduce them better: "known from..." Just the words "Academy Award-winner" would give a good indication of Jessica Lange’s status for anyone unfamiliar with her.
There should be more on ratings: how were the numbers interpreted? Were they better or worse than expected? How did they compare to other FX shows (it was actually the best FX series premiere ever), or other shows in the same timespot? TV by the Numbers are also listing international ratings now () Here are some more relevant articles: , , , 
Including a couple more reviews – and splitting it into two paragraphs – couldn’t hurt, maybe some more negative ones?
Pictures: one or two of the creators/actors in the "Production" section would be good. See how others have done this.
It's missing an "External links" section: IMDb, TV.com, FX episode page.
Hopefully this will help.Lampman (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This article is not GA-ready and the nominator does not appear to be working on the article or responding to talk page inquiries. I'd jump in and rescue this but I am spread thin at the moment. --Another Believer(Talk) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it the usual week before I decide on it. It would be a shame if the changes weren't made though; it's not that far from being a GA. Lampman (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it's almost there. You mentioned above about the pilot episode of The Office and I think it's more detailed than that. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly a lot better than when I first saw it, but I'm curious as to why there's still so many one- or two-sentence paragraphs in the plot summary? The layout guidelines are not crazy about this. Lampman (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow review. Though I do not feel that all my requirements have been met, I suppose the article now meets the most basic criteria for a GA. I have also made some additions myself, of information I believed was important for sufficient coverage of the subject. I will promote it, but it could still need more work, especially if there is any intention to bring it further. Lampman (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This review has been completed, it looks like, but no change in status has happened. If the review is done and you are just waiting for improvements to be made, please place it on hold. AstroCog (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)