Talk:Pilot (The Cosby Show)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 20:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: The picture is a quick deletion candidate. I realize that you're fighting this nomination, but in order to justify the picture being kept, the image page needs to be beefed up to explain the pictures relevance, like this or this.
- Is the FUR now sufficient for you to support at WP:FFD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I believe it is now. I will jump in there.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intro: There's not need to have refs in the lead. I'd move [1] to the infobox
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intro: This section needs to be beefed up quite a bit. There's no summary of the plot, an the production is just barely mentioned
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: There is not need to have an overview and in-depth section for the plot. Maybe move the overview section to the intro to beef it up
- Thanks. I created Pilot (The Cosby Show) and then found that Pilot (Cosby Show) had some history to merge in. I did not know what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "Theo's (Malcolm-Jamal Warner) report card contained 4 Ds" 4 should be spelled out as four
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "his low grades were OK" OK is kind of unencyclopedic. Maybe say "his low grades did not matter to him"
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "His younger sister Vanessa was trying to get Theo in trouble as well." How so? Did it happen in the past, or was it happening at the dinner table?
- I hope it is O.K. now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: Some of the sentences are a little inane, "Claire asks him why they had four children, to which Cliff replied because they didn't want to have five." Why does this matter? I understand it's mentioned later, but bringing it up in the plot is just overkill
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "When Theo replies that he's not" When he's not what
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "(This is one of the few times a profanity of any sort is used in the series)" This is fancrufty, I'd remove it.
- It was an artifact from the history merge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "Cliff, however, to the audience's surprise and amused approval, immediately and angrily calls this sentiment "the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life," completely rejecting the notion that loving his son means he must quietly and willingly accept it when the boy does not give his best effort in school, and famously threatened him with the often quoted line, "I brought you in this world, and I'll take you out."" Very, very long run-on sentence. Break it up so that it is not so long
- split in two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot: "Then Vanessa and Rudy knock on the bedroom door because Rudy heard the wolfman in the closet." Maybe just say that the kids are scared of a fictional monster in their closet. Introducing the Wolfman out of nowhere is kind of confusing
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cast: The more I see these, the more I dislike them. A cast list really is not necessary for an episode article, mainly because the parent TV article will have an appropriate list. Your best bet is to add who played who into the plot section, maybe with a brief description if the sentence would makes sense
- For these 20th century shows, we rarely have season articles. It is difficult to know for sure who was in the cast. For example, in this show a fifth child is added to the main cast in season 1 episode 10. People can ignore the list quite easily and for others it will answer the question whether this show was one before the 5th child was added to the main cast.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Production: "the headwriter for the series is..." 'is' should probably be 'was'
- Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awards: I would make this section a sub-section of "Critical review"
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Critical review: Why not rename this "Reception" and divide into "Ratings", "Critical Reviews", an "Awards"
- Done;.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies: I would convert the lists into prose and move this entire section as either a sub-section or a separate paragraph under "Production"
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References: Both [18] and [20] don't need the title bolded
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all the changes look very good. I will pass. I have a feeling that the image might give you trouble, but that's just out of experience I've had with a certain image moderator. As of right now, I think the rationale is good.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]