Talk:Pilot (Cold Feet)

Pilot (Cold Feet) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British / Episode coverage Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are problems in this article with overly long and in some cases obvious run-on sentences. Examples include the first paragraph of the Lead, second sentence of the Production section, as well as most of the second, third and fourth paragraphs in that same section. Also there are mistakes with punctuation, which should be placed inside of quoted text.

2. Factually accurate?: Good usage of Citation Templates, though there is a small problem with the References/Notes section, which I will make a minor correction to.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers good key points and various areas of the program. I would suggest splitting the Broadcast and reception section into two separate subsections, "Broadcast" and "Reception."

4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in neutral tone.

5. Article stability? No problems see on the talk page or in article history going back to article creation (article was created recently).

6. Images?: No images used, so not an issue. Would it be possible to use perhaps a screenshot or a fair-use image, with detailed fair use rationale provided on the image page?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After above points have been addressed, please note changes made to fix them here below. Message my talk page when that is done and I will take another look at the article. You have Seven Days. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1. I've run through the prose and can't see any "obvious" run-on sentences but I've ironed out some excessive occurences of "[comma] with" and "[comma] though". If there is still a prose issue I will submit the article to LoCE to see what they can do. Quote punctuation has been amended to conform to WP:PUNC.

3. I gave splitting the sections a go when I was sandboxing this and it didn't work. The problem is the original broadcast leads to a reception (award), that leads to another broadcast (notable repeat), that leads to more reception. Splitting the sections would mean introducing the Montreux win in the middle of the broadcast section or otherwise splitting paragraphs that rely on each other to make sense.

6. I'm sure a buttock-related screenshot can be arranged if I insert some info on the filming of the scene.

Thanks for your thorough review. Brad (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

I looked it over and the article is now of a quality that I feel I can pass it as a GA, good work. The article could definitely still use a bit more proofreading and copy-editing as far as prose and such, but this is something that could be ironed out in a Peer Review. And yes, WP:LOCE would be a good idea as well. Done -- Pass. I will update the necessary GA things. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Naming convention discussion

At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#TV pilot naming standards, there is a discussion about how articles about untitled pilots should be named. A change has been proposed which would affect this article. Regular editors of this page are invited to join the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes its subject as a one-off comedy drama. To call it Pilot (Cold Feet) is laughable. Grant (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article television pilot. Nobody except you is laughing. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused reviews

Camp, Todd. "'Cold Feet' a clever British sitcom that hits close to home", Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The McClatchy Company. 11 December 2000, p. 6.
Mendoza, Manuel. "True Brit", The Dallas Morning News, A. H. Belo Corporation. 11 December 2000.
Thompson, Kevin D.. "TV Today", The Palm Beach Post, Cox Enterprises, 11 December 2000. p. 7E.
Zad, Martie. "Discovery Goes Inside Space Station", The Washington Post, Washington Post Company. 10 December 2000.
Staff. "TV diet", Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The New York Times Company. 11 December 2000.
Staff. "TV Reviews", The Hollywood Reporter, Nielsen Business Media (archived at allbusiness.com). 11 December 2000.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot (Cold Feet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lsw.org.uk/sc4.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322021320/http://www.rts.org.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?art_id=6116&sec_id=3486 to http://www.rts.org.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?art_id=6116&sec_id=3486
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7000000053530

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]