This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pilot (Smallville) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Pilot (Smallville) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pilot (Smallville) is part of the Smallville (season 1) series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by ChannelSpider, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important and satisfies WP:GNG.". |
We should make format this page how we want all the episodes formatted and use it as a template. - Peregrinefisher 19:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like both TVRage.Com and tv.com (CNET Networks, Inc.) allow any registered user to edit their information. This would make them unreliable for factual information, although you could cite the opinions expressed on them. (Of course, keeping them as external links, not references, is not a problem.) Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to your message on my talk page, I don't think this episode article is very well-referenced at this time. There don't appear to be any references for the longest section of the article - the "Plot" section, nor any non-inline references. The external links are not considered to be sources. If you used one or more of them as a source, put it/them in the References section. If you used the original episode as a source, cite that as a reference. (Note that certain uses of primary sources constitute original research.) It doesn't need to be perfect or FA quality, just start by saying where you got the information from. If it's an unreliable source or something, other editors can help point that out, and maybe help find a better source, but no evaluation of the source can be made if none is cited. If the citation templates are daunting, then just do it by hand and let other editors format it. (That said, the more bibliographical information you can provide, the better.) It's easier to reference things as you write them rather than afterwards, so I encourage you not to rush in creating individual episode articles. (Gradual expansion of season articles until they each reached 40-60 kb of well-referenced material would help, but this does not seem to be your plan, perhaps because of organisational issues.) Best of luck, Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The quote here by Martha doesn't really follow the consistency of the other episodes. Normally it says something that would appear as:
Martha: We didn't find him. He found us.
But it currently says "'We didn't find him. He found us.' - Martha Kent".
Great job, one of the best episode pages I've seen. I've changed one thing, but it was only very minor. It flows well, and is complete. This has a chance of becomming the sixth episode FA (but by experience, I tend to have no idea what I'm talking about but there we go). And I still can;t do Article History, so could someone else do that please? Gran 2 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
*
[2] another -
BIGNOLE
(Contact me) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless the title of the pilot episode was actually "Pilot", the article name should probably be renamed.-- Jeffro77 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of instances of infelicitous style here, guys. (I personally know almost nothing about the show and still less about its filming, so am unable to correct.)
-- Also --
-- 201.19.77.39 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is stated in the second paragraph of the article that "[the pilot] was generally well received by critics, and was nominated for several awards, winning two." Which awards was it nominated for, and which ones did it win? I did not bother to read the entire article, but a featured article which makes mention of award-winning ought to have these things readily available, perhaps under its own section within the article.
12.20.146.126 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this not make sense to anyone else?
"Allison Mack toyed with the idea of auditioning for the role of Lana Lang but chose instead to audition for the role of Chloe Sullivan.[13] The character was created just for the series and was intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast."
Are they saying that Allison Mack adds ethnic diversity to the cast, or that the intention the character of Chloe Sullivan was created so they could have more ethnic diversity (although they may or may not have succeeded with the casting). Shirley Ku 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is listed as a FA so I will open a discussion before being bold and correcting it the way I think it should be.
When someone reads section titled Plot, one expects to read what actually happenes in the episode. What is written at the moment, is a weird mixture of what happens (plot) and how and why the events are significant later in the series and what the authors were trying to do. So it's a mess all over and needs to be splitted into a Plot section and Analysis section. To make it clear, sentences like This was a concept Gough and Millar devised to establish a reason for Clark's clumsiness. In other media, it is usually portrayed as an act he puts on to deceive people of his true identity. are not a plot and should be in a separate section. If no objections, I will correct in in a few days. -- Tone 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I agree that WP isn't a substitution for watching. But as far as I know, the encyclopedias actually give the plot first, though very briefly, and then move to other things (well, depends on the book). Since this is a wiki, the plot usually tends to be long and detailed (people add to it...). Anyway, I still suggest a separation. If there are only 3-4 sentences of analysis of the themes, so be it. There's nothing wrong with short sections, if they cover the topis well. If I had seen the FAC before, I would have said this then, it bothers me. The rest of the article is otherwise nice and should be used as a model for other episodes. -- Tone 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I once had a rip of the pilot's original (or close to original) airings, and Ettinger was in it. (as this [3] confirms). So did Ettinger complete the (aired) pilot, and did they then re-shot all her scenes with O'Toole for the dvd? I guess this is the case, but it could be clarified. Mdiamante 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cw.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/thecw/original/castcrew?id=227&dpid=55When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
As part of the continuing sweeps of old featured articles to ensure continued compliance with the featured article criteria, I looked over this FA to see if it still meets current standards. I had some comments:
Pinging Bignole, RobertG, and DonQuixote as top still-active editors. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pilot (Smallville) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Pilot (Smallville) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pilot (Smallville) is part of the Smallville (season 1) series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by ChannelSpider, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important and satisfies WP:GNG.". |
We should make format this page how we want all the episodes formatted and use it as a template. - Peregrinefisher 19:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like both TVRage.Com and tv.com (CNET Networks, Inc.) allow any registered user to edit their information. This would make them unreliable for factual information, although you could cite the opinions expressed on them. (Of course, keeping them as external links, not references, is not a problem.) Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to your message on my talk page, I don't think this episode article is very well-referenced at this time. There don't appear to be any references for the longest section of the article - the "Plot" section, nor any non-inline references. The external links are not considered to be sources. If you used one or more of them as a source, put it/them in the References section. If you used the original episode as a source, cite that as a reference. (Note that certain uses of primary sources constitute original research.) It doesn't need to be perfect or FA quality, just start by saying where you got the information from. If it's an unreliable source or something, other editors can help point that out, and maybe help find a better source, but no evaluation of the source can be made if none is cited. If the citation templates are daunting, then just do it by hand and let other editors format it. (That said, the more bibliographical information you can provide, the better.) It's easier to reference things as you write them rather than afterwards, so I encourage you not to rush in creating individual episode articles. (Gradual expansion of season articles until they each reached 40-60 kb of well-referenced material would help, but this does not seem to be your plan, perhaps because of organisational issues.) Best of luck, Armedblowfish ( talk| mail| contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The quote here by Martha doesn't really follow the consistency of the other episodes. Normally it says something that would appear as:
Martha: We didn't find him. He found us.
But it currently says "'We didn't find him. He found us.' - Martha Kent".
Great job, one of the best episode pages I've seen. I've changed one thing, but it was only very minor. It flows well, and is complete. This has a chance of becomming the sixth episode FA (but by experience, I tend to have no idea what I'm talking about but there we go). And I still can;t do Article History, so could someone else do that please? Gran 2 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
*
[2] another -
BIGNOLE
(Contact me) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless the title of the pilot episode was actually "Pilot", the article name should probably be renamed.-- Jeffro77 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of instances of infelicitous style here, guys. (I personally know almost nothing about the show and still less about its filming, so am unable to correct.)
-- Also --
-- 201.19.77.39 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is stated in the second paragraph of the article that "[the pilot] was generally well received by critics, and was nominated for several awards, winning two." Which awards was it nominated for, and which ones did it win? I did not bother to read the entire article, but a featured article which makes mention of award-winning ought to have these things readily available, perhaps under its own section within the article.
12.20.146.126 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this not make sense to anyone else?
"Allison Mack toyed with the idea of auditioning for the role of Lana Lang but chose instead to audition for the role of Chloe Sullivan.[13] The character was created just for the series and was intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast."
Are they saying that Allison Mack adds ethnic diversity to the cast, or that the intention the character of Chloe Sullivan was created so they could have more ethnic diversity (although they may or may not have succeeded with the casting). Shirley Ku 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is listed as a FA so I will open a discussion before being bold and correcting it the way I think it should be.
When someone reads section titled Plot, one expects to read what actually happenes in the episode. What is written at the moment, is a weird mixture of what happens (plot) and how and why the events are significant later in the series and what the authors were trying to do. So it's a mess all over and needs to be splitted into a Plot section and Analysis section. To make it clear, sentences like This was a concept Gough and Millar devised to establish a reason for Clark's clumsiness. In other media, it is usually portrayed as an act he puts on to deceive people of his true identity. are not a plot and should be in a separate section. If no objections, I will correct in in a few days. -- Tone 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I agree that WP isn't a substitution for watching. But as far as I know, the encyclopedias actually give the plot first, though very briefly, and then move to other things (well, depends on the book). Since this is a wiki, the plot usually tends to be long and detailed (people add to it...). Anyway, I still suggest a separation. If there are only 3-4 sentences of analysis of the themes, so be it. There's nothing wrong with short sections, if they cover the topis well. If I had seen the FAC before, I would have said this then, it bothers me. The rest of the article is otherwise nice and should be used as a model for other episodes. -- Tone 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I once had a rip of the pilot's original (or close to original) airings, and Ettinger was in it. (as this [3] confirms). So did Ettinger complete the (aired) pilot, and did they then re-shot all her scenes with O'Toole for the dvd? I guess this is the case, but it could be clarified. Mdiamante 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cw.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/thecw/original/castcrew?id=227&dpid=55When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
As part of the continuing sweeps of old featured articles to ensure continued compliance with the featured article criteria, I looked over this FA to see if it still meets current standards. I had some comments:
Pinging Bignole, RobertG, and DonQuixote as top still-active editors. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)