I'm working to get this episode up to featured status. I'd like some suggestions for improvement. I think it's one of the better episode articles, but I'm a biased observer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph of the lead is stubby and the lead does not cover the production as mcuh as it could (casting, filming, and effects aren't mentioned even though each have their own sections). There's probably a "two birds with one stone" solution here. Jay32183 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it look now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a lot better. You're probably close to FA status, but I'm not a 1a(prose) guy. You're good on 1b, d, and e, and with 1c the only uncited section is the plot. Generally, no one will complain about that since the source is intuitive, but adding minutes couldn't hurt if you've got the time and resources. Hopefully, you get some more reviewers during the peer review so the FAC will run smoothly. Jay32183 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL, citing the minutes. I have to honestly say that that is the first I'm I've heard that. It's good to know I guess; if someone says something in the FAC at least I can't say I've never heard that, now. Thanks for the criticism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review of Pilot (Smallville). Feel free to paste it somewhere more convenient.

Content:

• The lead seemed off to me somehow. I have not read any other wikipedia pages on TV episodes, but this one seemed to contain too much detail, such as the five months bit, and yet not enough information for the lead to be a true summary of the article. This was just the impression I received when I read it. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." - I did not get the idea that it could stand alone or that the emphasis in the lead matched that of the article.

• The sentences of the lead paragraphs do not flow into one another. They are not coherent paragraphs. Also, they are missing some detail (see internal comments). Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leads are meant to summarize. Details are supposed to be in the body of the article. If you put details in the lead then what is the point of repeating yourself in the body.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, but without the details I suggested, the reader does not understand the large claims you are making. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detail wise, it is all justified in the body of the article. The lead says "it broke several WB records", that's pretty clear. The question would be "what records?", which is answered in the reception section in detail as to what records.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is all justified, but a phrase such as "it broke several WB viewership records" or "it broke several WB premiere viewership records" would help draw the reader into the article without providing too much detail. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah...now it makes sense. I thought you were refering to details as in literally listing the numbers that broke the record. Gotcha. I can make these changes though. Sorry about that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I admire the short plot summary (way too many pages have exhaustive plot narrations, not plot summaries), I wonder if the summary emphasizes the crucial events in the episode (happily, I have seen a lot of Smallville, including this episode). It seems to focus too much on the details of the "introductory" material and not enough on the "meat" of the episode. The prose is also much too choppy.

• The plot summary still spends too much time describing the introductory sequence. You could simply say that the scene establishes that they are all orphans and briefly say why - you do not need all of that description. Also, the sentences in that first paragraph of the plot summary are short and stubby. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has one paragraph for the "introduction", as that one paragraph describes the events of of the meteor shower as they pertain to the three leads of the show. Those events are the catalyst for the entire episode, so I would think they might need a bit more detail than Jeremy Creek's literal actions throughout the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am telling you how it reads to me. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot summary does not hang together. The paragraphs are not coherent wholes - they jump around from topic to topic. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest. Better transitions will only make it longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transitions and deletion of extraneous detail. A plot summary summarizes only the essential elements of a plot; it does not mention every element of the plot. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest then, because it's broken into 3 paragraps. The first paragraph handles the major event of the teaser. The second paragraph is the next act, which is about Clark becoming friends with Lex, and developing his relationship with Lana. Jeremy is second fiddle in this episode (really more like third, or fourth, as he pops in and out just so you don't forget about him).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would use something like this (I did this in five minutes, so don't judge me too harshly):

The episode begins in 1989 when a meteor shower hits Smallville, KS; at the same time a small spacecraft, containing an alien boy, crashes in front of Jonathan and Martha Kent's truck. They adopt the superhumanly powerful child and name him Clark. Gough and Millar use this opening scene to establish that the three lead characters of the series, Clark, Lana and Lex, share a common bond—they are all orphans: Clark is the only survivor of his home world; Lana's entire family is killed in the meteor shower; and Lex is alienated from his father, Lionel Luther, after being made bald by the meteor blast.^[1]

The episode jumps forward twelve years to when Clark (Tom Welling) is trying to find his identity. He is unable to handle being told of his alien origins and runs away and although he is in love with Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk), he cannot get close to her without falling over in pain because she wears a necklace made of meteor rock (kryptonite). But Clark and Lana do share an intimate moment at a cemetery, where Lana is visiting the grave of her parents. In such scenes, Gough and Millar created a theme of loneliness through the life stories of Clark and Lana.

In the second strand of the story, Lex and Clark develop a "yin and yang" relationship. Clark first saves Lex from drowning when they get into a car accident and Lex saves Clark when he is strung up as a scarecrow in a field and immobilized by kryptonite.^[2] Alerted by his friends Chloe and Pete, Clark is then able to save the high school students from a crazed student bent on revenge.

• I took your suggestion and reworked the plot. I included a couple things you didn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is Whitney? The reader does not know - you introduce him out of the blue. Try to imagine a reader who does not know the episode well. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted "her boyfriend Whitney" in front of the first instance of his name to clarify who he is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are far too many details in this plot summary; the "Wall of Weird," for example, does not need to be mentioned. You need only the broad strokes of the episode (see Julie, or the New Heloise for a relatively short summary of a 600-page book to get an idea of how to do this). Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the WoW stuff, so it just reads "After learning that it was ...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was just one example. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe is extraneous when you are reading it? You have to remember, I've been working on this article for awhile, so it's harder for me to see "minor" things that can be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Gough and Millar use the words "yin and yang"? If so, they should be put in quotation marks. Awadewit | talk 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've added the quotation marks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Annette O'Toole, who was fresh off the recent cancellation of her television series The Huntress, was cast in Ettinger's place. - I think that you should mention she played Lana Lang in a Superman movie - it's a nice metatextual connection.

• When David Nutter joined the project, he joined with the belief that the show should be fun and smart, and at the same time respect their audience. - This implies that the show changed character and Nutter was no longer happy with it - is that true? If so, might you mention why?

Nutter apparently was specifically going for that "fun, smart..." in the pilot, as that is his style.

Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close-ups of Whitney were shot under a football stadium, while close-ups of Lana were shot in a potato factory. Um, why?

The multiple locations was generally because time did not allow them to do many reshoots in the same spot. I can only assume that was the problem with the Lana and Whitney scene on her porch.

Can you make this more clear, then? Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the major themes was relationship triangles. - "relationship triangles" is difficult to call a theme - it might be better classified as the plot element that leads to a theme like "unrequited love" or something like that - what are the ideas or concepts associated with the triangles?

• Loneliness was a theme Gough and Millar wanted to attribute to Clark, Lana, and Lex. - themes are not really "attributed to" characters in this way - how about "Clark, Lana, and Lex exemplified the theme of loneliness that Gough and Millar wanted to emphasize" or "Loneliness, represented by Clark, Lana, and Lex's life stories, was an important theme to Gough and Millar."

• One theme, kryptonite enhancing the sins of the antagonist, was created to help provide the stories from week to week. Instead of creating physical monsters, the kryptonite would enhance their personal demons, as well as give them powers. This was seen in a more literal sense in the later episodes. - This is a plot device, not a theme.

• Did you decide to leave this out? Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it's something that is more focused on the entire season and not really seen as literal in the pilot as in later episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another major theme, designed to run the course of the series, was of the yin and yang relationship between Clark and Lex. In the pilot, this is played out when Clark saves Lex's life early in the episode when he saves him from drowning; it is reciprocated when Lex pulls Clark from the scarecrow stand, allowing the kryptonite around his neck to fall away, saving his life. - This is a plot device as you have described it - there are thematic elements to it, but you have not discussed them.

Your concerns about the theme can only be addressed when I have more sources for it. I'm not going to rewrite it to include original research on my part. If it is listed as a "theme" that is because Gough, Millar, and Nutter used that word specifically. They did not elaborate anymore than what is there, and thus it will have to wait till I get more sources.

I would either put this information under "plot summary" or under a section on "structure of episode" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

• They received Kristin Kreuk's audition tape, and liked it so much they immediately showed her to the network. - I wonder if it would be a good idea to remind audiences what characters the actors play. I myself never remember actors' names - I only remember the roles they play.

• Tom Welling, after initially turning down the producers twice, was cast as Clark Kent. - shouldn't it be something like "accepted the role of"? I found the sentence confusing.

I added Kristin's character to that statement, and clarified Welling's casting. It actually read like he took the role, but in fact he still had to audition. Had they not liked him his readings I'm sure he wouldn't have been cast.

• See below. Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gough believed Schneider's experience from The Dukes of Hazzard added belief that he could have grown up running a farm. - "added belief" is awkward phrasing - perhaps "added believability to the idea that he could have grown up running a farm" or someething like that

• The character was created just for the series,[1] and was intended to have an ethnic background. - "intended to have an ethnic background" sounds very awkward - was the character supposed to be a minority?

• See below. Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nutter crafted the scene of Clark and Lana in the barn to be the final scene for the pilot, as he saw it as the moment that expressed what the show was all about. - repetitious and awkward; how about "Nutter crafted the final scene, which shows Clark and Lana [doing what exactly?]; he saw [what is the "it"?] as the moment that expressed the show's essence."

I can only put what Nutter says, and that is the final scene showed, in his opinion, what the show was supposed to be about. I can't elaborate on something he didn't elaborate on. I can explain the scene better (which I just did), which is a fantasy Clark has about dancing with Lana, but I can't put words in his mouth. He didn't precisely say "the moment shows Clark's longing for Lana, and exemplifies that unrequited love that he has, blah blah blah", as he didn't say anything of the sort.

That is fine, then. Part of the problem was the missing details. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially, production was going to be in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "Middle America landscape" the creators were looking for. - "going to be" sounds a little plain and vague; also, don't end a sentence on a preposition (general rule); how about "Production was initially slated to take place in Australia, but Vancouver, Canada had more of the "middle America" feel for which the creators were looking."

• The area provided a site for the Kent farm, and their barn; the city itself doubled as Metropolis. - slightly awkward; how about "The area provided a site for the Kent farm, including their barn, and the city itself doubled as Metropolis."

• Nutter spent sixteen days on main unit filming, and an additional five days for second unit filming. - Are there any appropriate links for "main unit filming" and "second unit filming" for uninformed readers?

Apparently, there are no direct links to "main unit" and "second unit" filming. They both take place in "production", but I don't see where that article explains that the difference between the two. I could try and find a definition of the two for the article, or do you think a red link should be placed there for someone to fill in?

I would definitely red-link them - they are important film terms. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The limited time forced Nutter to shoot the opening teaser of the meteor shower based on an extensive 150 page storyboard, which was drawn by Adrien Van Viersen. - meaning is unclear - what would he have shot from if he had had more time? also the "extensive 150" pages doesn't make it sound difficult to shoot in limited time

Had Nutter had more time he would have had the chance to deviate from the script a bit, but limited time forced him to stick to the storyboards. 150 pages of anything is extensive, even more so for just an opening segment. I'll try and find a source that states the usual storyboard amount for an entire episode so that we have a comparison.

Then you need to emphasize the fact that he had to stick to the storyboards. Right now the sentence emphasizes the 150 storyboards. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 150 page storyboard is not extensive, really, not for an hour long show such as this one with all the effects. Heck I've had 8 pages for a 3 minute production before, with very boring shoots. And this for a local industrial film. Also, I don't know how to explain unit filming to add to the article. "Main unit" filming involves the more important scenes, the main scenes. The "second unit" filming is for close ups, adding scenery, filler for continuity, adding special effects, perhaps snippets of couples, groups, etc, different locations shoots, etc., etc. All to be edited later in the editing room. I wouldn't know how to write that without confusing people more as it's a lot more complicated than what I wrote. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just noticed it was for the opening teaser, not the whole pilot. Hmmm. Again, with all the effects I would think it would involve an extensive storyboard anyway. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets go by your personal experience. 8 pages for 3 minutes, that's 336 pages for 42 minutes, and way less than 100 for the opening teaser which probably lasted a little less than 10 minutes (i don't actually recall). 150 is rather large for such a short segment, especially if you cannot deviate at all from it. Regardless, I am again using Nutter's words to describe the boards, so to him they were extensive for that one segment. I think special effects are post-production. The setup for those effects would be second unit. Also, I saw you changed the Welling audition. If you accept the role, or at least if you write that, it appears as though he had nothing else to do after saying "yes". But he still had to audition, and if he had to audition then he had the chance to be rejected by the studio. I put "accepted the chance" so illustrate the next sentence that states he had to go in for auditions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider. - A footnote perhaps? This information is not connected to the rest of the paragraph.

How would you suggest including it as a "footnote", as I'm not familiar with that usage for a Wikipedia article.

<ref>Shannon Mews was used as an interior set for the Dark Angel pilot and the film Along Came a Spider.</ref> Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The crash site of Clark's ship was shot at the sandpits where they filmed Mission to Mars. - not relevant; mere trivia - perhaps a footnote, again

• I assume you think that readers will want to know this? If so fine. Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple set pieces were built just for the pilot. - Literally two? Use "two" then; if not, then "several."

• Corn was a major problem the director faced, as it was a necessity for a show based in Kansas. - awkward syntax

• Another theme introduced in the pilot, and one connected to the theme of triangle relationships, is that of the three leads all being orphans. - wordy

• For Clark, it was the idea of "a young man with a secret," which is illustrated in the scene where he watches Lana and Whitney through his telescope in his barn. - wordy

• For Lex, he is given everything anyone could ever want, except love. - awkward and vague

Tried to explain what Lex gets.

• The "Themes" section feels like a list. Several sentences begin "Another theme..." I have tried to change some of these, but you should try to tell the reader what the dominant themes are and what the subthemes are - make a distinction.

Here are some sources you might find useful:

• "The Wonder Woman Precedent: Female (Super)Heroism on Trial" By: O'Reilly, Julie D.; Journal of American Culture, 2005 Sept; 28 (3): 273-83

• "Smallville’s Sexual Symbolism: From Queer Repression to Fans’ Queered Expressions" by A Kustritz - 2005 - Refractory

• "Superman and Super Myth: Mapping Intertextuality in Smallville" KA Simmons, Dept. of Speech Communication - 2006 - Colorado State University (This is a dissertation.)

• Jes Battis, "The Kryptonite closet: Silence and queer secrecy in Smallville," Jump Cut, No. 48, winter 2006

• Robinson, Michael G. "The Day Superman Changed.” Refractory, vol 6, 2004: 1-15. (perhaps) Awadewit | talk 08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've tried to expand this some more. The edit summary tries to explain what is going on. . . . I'll have to go through the themes section again, and I'll try and find those resources you listed. Bignole 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What about Second unit director? Do anyone think we could pipe "Second unit filming" to that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • For now, but obviously it would be best to have an entire article. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

• Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition, accepted the chance at the role of Clark Kent. - This sounds awkward - if he turned it down, why would he accepted "a chance"? The sentence sounds contradictory. Why did he accept in the end, anyway? Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put in the fact that David Nutter saw his picture in some photo album of actors and called his manager to convince him to audition? Maybe I just put that on the main article's page...(going to check)...nope, it wasn't there...I put it in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "chance" sounds odd, especially since he had to be coaxed into it. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Tom Welling, after twice turning down the producers' attempts to get him to audition for the role of Clark Kent, eventually accepted the opportunity to be apart of the show."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The character was created just for the series,[3] and was intended to have an ethnic minority background. - Probably should read "The character was created just for the series and was intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast" or something like that. Very awkward as it is now. Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using your example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the reason she was cast was because Gough and Millar felt she had a "rare ability to deliver large chunks of expositionary dialogue conversationally." - Do you mean "expository"? Awadewit | talk 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I do then it means there was a major typo in the book, because that was the exact word used by Paul Simpson when he quoted Al Gough. He could have misquoted him. I kept see WORD suggest the word you just did, but "expositionary" is the word that Simpson quoted Gough with. Maybe Gough just used the wrong word. I could put "rare ability to deliver large chunks of [expository] dialogue conversationally."...you know make the correction for them. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's doesn't have "expositionary." I wouldn't replace it, though. I would put "expositionary [sic]." The [sic] just signifies to readers, "yeah, I know that's weird, but the quotation actually says that" (see sic). Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In the comics, Pete Ross is Caucasian, and the producers chose to cast Jones III, who is African-American, against the mythology. - Perhaps because they had cast Chloe as white? Do we know? (forgot to sign) Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. I have on the main article that he wasn't even cast until the Sunday (4 days) before they started shooting, so he was a last minute cast and it was merely because he auditioned well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gough and Millar were fans of director David Nutter's previous work - What work? Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't mention specific shows. Obviously they mean television shows, as he has worked on a lot of pilots. The mention The X-Files in passing, but it's more like "he's also done..." and less of "we really like what he did with ..."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The area provided a site for the Kent farm, including their barn, and the city itself doubled as Metropolis. Vancouver also provided a cheaper shooting location, and was in the same time zone as Los Angeles. - two "provided's" in a row Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed first one to "offered".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Time constrants forced Nutter stick to a 150 page storyboard, which was drawn by Adrien Van Viersen, when filming the opening teaser involving the meteor shower. - "stick to" is a little colloquial (fixed other parts of sentence myself) Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "to film strictly from Adrien Van..."?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, there are a lot of wordy sentences. I have tried to fix some of them. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is coming along well. I would suggest you focus your efforts on the lead and the "Plots and themes" sections. (Of course, more research would be nice. Right now, all of your sources are the creators themselves, it looks like.) Awadewit | talk 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it comes to production type information, I don't see a more reliable source than the horses mouth. Obviously secondary sources are the best, but probably not when it comes to giving objective information like "we filmed this in 3 days". I find books that are "making of" to be most reliable. An interview is an interview, whether you have 30 interviews with 30 news organizations, or 30 with one organization.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you on production, but not on interpretation. Interpretation should not be based solely on the creators themselves. They have one set of meanings, but viewers, scholars and critics often have others, which are just as legitimate. There isn't just "one meaning" or "one message" to the episode. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Of course, I know what you mean about how people see the themes of the show, I was only refering to how it's all first hand at the moment because most of the page reflects what was literally going on behind the secnes, and not so much on the interpretation aspect (i.e. the plot and themes section). That was why I haven't even started to go to an FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]