Wikipedia:Peer review/The Pilot (Friends)/archive1

The Pilot (Friends)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Bog-standard article on a television pilot. I'm listing this article because I believe it's close to FA-standard now (bearing similarities to Pilot (House) and Pilot (Smallville)). I'm mostly looking for comments on language in order to satisfy the usually brutal 1.a requirements at FAC. Thanks, Bradley0110 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are some comments on the lead and first two sections. I will try to cover the rest later.

• Lead
  • The opening sentence is not compelling, with a large parenthetical insert. I suggest you rephrase: "The pilot episode of the American situation comedy Friends premiered on NBC (National Broadcasting Company) on September 22, 1994. Also known as The One Where Monica Gets a Roommate and The one Where It All Began, the episode was writeen by..." etc
  • Suggest "The pilot introduces six friends who live and work in New York City;"
  • Then, after the semicolon; "Monica (Courtney Cox), who sleeps with....etc; her brother Ross (David Schwimmer), who is depressed...etc; Rachel (Jennifer Aniston), an old school-friend of Monica's who runs out of her own wedding and moves in with Monica."
    • I didn't realize this was here, and undid this change. Without the "who", would the sentence be grammatically incorrect? If not, I would rather leave them out. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggest "sleeping with a man on their first date" (not "the first date")
  • "to this" is a redundant phrase
  • If possible, avoid repetition of "audience". You caould say: "those at the live taping..." etc
  • The sentence ending "a few days later did" is awkward phrasing. Try: "a focus group who viewed it a few days later thought otherwise".
  • "...was told to make further edits..." Told by whom?
  • "The episode was viewed by an average of 22 million viewers..." This should be "The pilot was viewed". Also, what does "an average of..." mean, in relation to the viewing figures for a single episode?
  • By way of a passing comment: there was concern that the characters were undeveloped. In a first episode introducing six characters, would you expect them to be developed? Seems an odd criticism.
• Plot
  • The present tense should be maintained throughout.
  • Thus, "Rachel explains that she has left her fiance, and has no-one else in the city to turn to."
  • "Later, everyone is back in Monica's apartment". "Back" is wrong, since they weren't all there before. Try: "Later, everyone gathers in Monica's apartment..."
  • Similarly, "...return to Ross's apartment" should be "go to Ross's apartment"
  • "Rachel arrives and tells the group that because she failed 12 interviews she bough boots with a credit card paid for by her father" This sentence reads wierdly and needs attention. Suggest: "Rachel arrives and tells the group that she has failed 12 job interviews. She has bought herself a pair of [expensive?] boots, using a credit card paid for by her father".
• Conception
  • "...they aimed to pitched..." Should be "pitched"?
  • "...though even before then" - "even" is redundant
  • The text beginning "The casting director shortlisted 1,000..." seems to belong to the "Casting" section rather than to "Conception". This sentence is actually quite messy. I believe "replied" should be "applied"; "who were called into to read for her" seems to have something missing. The whole sentence needs rewriting, perhaps as: "One thousand actors applied for each role; the casting director reduced these to 75 per role, and called these in to read for her".

Perhaps you will consider these points. I will await some response before tackling the remainder. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far. I've changed most of what you suggested in the lead, except for "the first date" to "their first date"—due to the sentence construction, "their" would imply that it is the audience's first date, so I've compromised and changed it to "a"! Re: "an average of 22 million viewers"--that would be a brain fart on my part. Of the "undeveloped", I assume that the critics didn't no what the purpose of some of the characters was.
  • I think I wrote the "average of.." part. From start to finish, the episode was not watched by 22 million; rather, it was probably watch by 23 at the start, and 21 by the end, or vice versa. Throughout the whole episode's run, it was watched by an average of 22. I see you removed it, and that's not a problem; most others would have probably found issue with it too. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've made a couple of changes to the plot section but as the whole section is complete rubbish (in nearly two years of editing TV/film articles, I've only once written a decent plot summary) I'm going to ask someone else to totally rewrite it.
• Re: replied/applied. The source uses "replied", as some of the casting agents would have said "This role isn't right for my actor", and would have just thrown the character breakdown in the bin. It's kind of like an RSVP. Thanks for your comments so far, further ones are welcomed. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A few more comments

• On the Casting section
  • Prose at the beginning is a bit jerky, with short sentences. Suggest a combination involving "...three or four for each part; these read for..."
  • Comma required after Monty
  • What does "greenlit" mean?
  • "...Would have had to have been recast" is unnecessarily wordy. "...would need recasting" will do.
  • "...would be the easiest to cast [for]." Word in brackets is redundant
  • The italicized words should be added into the text, for clarity: "...and requested an audition in Friends when he identifies with the Chandler character.
  • "...it was about a month" --> "...there was about a month"
  • At the end of the section information is given about guest stars. This information has nothing to do with the casting, and I suggest might be better placed elsewhere.

That's all for now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the minor changes you suggested (comma, link to greenlight, would need recasting, etc). I haven't italicised "Chandler", et al, as that would breach the manual of style on italics. As for the guest stars having nothing to do with casting, I disagree: Those actors had to go through the same casting process as everyone else. Sorry for the amount of time it's taken to make these changes. If you have any more suggestions, they'll be replied to faster! Bradley0110 (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)