|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||Pass. The prose is excellently written and conforms to every WP:MOS guideline I can think of. Almost every factoid and word has a reason for being in the article. What errors there are are very small. For example:
This is a past event, and so the sentence is now worded poorly. This and other errors could be easily fixed with a few minutes of copy editing, and do not interfere with the overall clarity of the article.
Very well done.
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||Pass. The lead section is adequate, but could still be improved upon. WP:LEAD states that leads "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". Take this to mean that it should at least touch on everything notable enough to merit a section in the article. Thus, the lead should probably spend some more time on conception, writing, casting, and music. This is a minor point and does not merit failing the article.
Layout is excellent.
The plot summary, while not violating any rules, should probably be tweaked to more clearly conform to WP:MOSFICT. That is, the plot summary should contain words that signpost the plot summary as a work of fiction, rather than real world events. This distinction is at least partially made just by naming the section "Plot" rather than "History" or "Events". Where words to watch are used, they are justified with ample referencing.
Good work here.
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.||
The reference was fixed.
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.|
|2c. it contains no original research.||The article is extremely well researched and supported.|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.||Pass. The article covers all of the usual information for a TV episode, and then some. Some of the information in the Production section appears to have been copy-pasted to or from the main Smash (TV series) article, and the argument could be made that the information is better suited in that article, but this being the first episode, the point could go either way and I'm inclined to leave it be.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).||At no point does the article slip into minutia, and there is a good reason for all of the content to be present.|
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.||Pass. The article presents the facts, and presents both positive and negative comments about the show. The article is balanced, as reviews of the show were mainly positive, and more space is devoted to positive comments than negative.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.||Pass. There are no current edit wars, though the article is still being slowly and actively improved by editors. The thrust of these improvements seems to be consistently in the same direction, careful, and for the better.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.||
Image was removed. Please feel free to add a reduced resolution of the photo. It was excellent, just didn't conform to the rules of fair use.
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||Pass. Images are used sparingly and correctly illustrate the article.|
|7. Overall assessment.||
The problems were all resolved. Nicely done.