Talk:Pilot (House)

GA Passing
Good amount of information for a TV pilot, I don't see how it can get much better...maybe a little more on the Behind the Scenes. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Guest stars in info box
I think that whoever played Adler should be in the infobox, as she is a main character (per se) for this episode. However, the other two currently listed guest-stars are not notable as they appear (from what I can tell from the article) only in one scene. Therefore, I am removing them from the list. If they appear more than once, this article does not mention it, which is a flaw that needs to be remedied. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! Save Stargate SG-1! 08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit
OK, listen up, boys and girls. I've done my major clean-up. There are several flaws that I have found, which I believe need be tended to. See the to-do list above for details. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! Save Stargate SG-1! 09:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?
I was attempting a spell check and noticed a "humour" outside of a direct quote. I expected this article to be in US English, as it is a US produced series that has its first broadcasts in the US. Is there some other aspect I'm missing? Jay32183 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's logical enough reasoning to follow the US English. The Filmaker 04:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhh no point arguing this again... Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 02:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
This page was marked as a copyright violation, which I feel is in error. The blanking of the page and requesting deletion is for when every version in the history is a copyright violation. The most recent version was not. Jay32183 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC) How is this article a copyvio? The original version was a copyvio, that is not being argued here. But the article has since been revised to the point that it is nothing like the TV IV version. How is this an issue? How is this harming Wikipedia? Furthermore, your link that you placed in your edit summary means nothing to me and I don't believe any other user around here. Please explain yourself before you so rashly block out this article which is currently in the middle of an FAC. The Filmaker 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've reverted the edit. The Filmaker 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From Copyright problems: "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." So if Zyaudi wants the old infringing versions of the text removed, an email from the copyright holders will need to be sent to Wikimedia Foundation to do that. Yes, administrators have the xcapability to remove individual revisions of pages, but, by policy, that is done in only very specific circumstances. And, in my opnion, the text is sufficiently different from the version complained about. — TKD::Talk 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Elements of the copied text persist into the current revision. Large parts of this are derivative of the copied text.  This needs to be addressed, possibly by deletion. See Copyright problems/Other. --RobthTalk 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We only have two sections in commons with the TV IV article: "Plot/Synopsis" and "Behind the scenes". The leads have nothing in common except for mentioning that this is the first episode of House and that Bryan Singer directed it. Because the TV IV Plot section was definitely not FA material, it was mostly rewritten. The "Behind the scenes" section only had two phrases that were wholely copied from TV IV; the rest of the contents of our "Behind the scenes" consists of information that is not found in any way, shape or form on House, M.D./Pilot. I reworded the remaining copyvio phrases, but I'm not sure that the writing style is necessarily better for it.--Rmky87 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from FAC discussion

 * For the record for anyone who reads this later. There are no suitable citations for the supposed "un-aired pilot". The link given above is to a site similar to Wikipedia. A site where any user can edit the article. This is not a suitable citation. The Filmaker 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FAC discussion is closed, but if you wish to discuss it further: the article here still cites imdb. If imdb is a citable source, then this refers to the unaired pilot. Gimmetrow 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That element of IMDB is not overseen by administrators, it is also an equivalent to Wikipedia. The Filmaker 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only parts of imdb I am aware of that are not fan submitted are WGA credits. Gimmetrow 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said. I said it was not overseen by the administrators. They are submitted by the fans, but the information is not checked before it is posted by any admin. At the top of the FAQ page, you can see the following "The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff." The Filmaker 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's also not what I said. The two points I am making:
 * The unaired pilot is mentioned often and seems to be legitimate content for this article. At this point, we only have the above assertion that a suitable citation does not exist.
 * Imdb is not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited for anything. Nevertheless this article continues to cite imdb.
 * Gimmetrow 05:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMDB is a reliable source that is present throughout many featured articles. As for having nothing other than my assertion. I don't know what to tell you. I'm saying there is no reliable source, having checked. You claim there is without any evidence to support the claim. If you do happen to find one I would be happy to add the information to the article. The Filmaker 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That other articles use imdb doesn't mean it should be used, and here, you have a much better source - one which I found and provided, yet still not used. I have no inclination to do any other research if it won't be used. I am puzzled by this resistance to change anything about the article. Gimmetrow 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that articles with IMDB sources have been voted through many featured articles before this, obviously the hundreds of users (including administrators) who vote on FACs do not have a problem with IMDB as a reliable source. I am not seeing this supposed better source that you provided. My resistance is not to make any changes to the article. Only uncited changes. Any uncited changes to a featured article is not helpful, in fact it is unhelpful and knocks the article down a peg. Hence, my resistance to adding the information on the un-aired pilot stems from the fact that it is not cited and cannnot be cited with a reliable source. Nothing in a featured article should be uncited. The Filmaker 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The current imdb citation can be replaced with a far better, reliable citation. This should be a simple, non-controversial improvement to the article. 2) info about the unaired pilot could be added, if someone would do the research and find appropriate references. Gimmetrow 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The IMDB citation is perfectly fine. If you have a better citation, then I would be more than happy to add it. However, at this time, I see no point for me to rush out and find a slightly better citation for a perfectly good citation. 2) I have done some research, but then stopped when I found that there were no appropriate references. Which is what this issue boils down to, there are no appropriate references for the unaired pilot that I have found. The Filmaker 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Orange tint?
Is there any reason why the episode always had such an orange color to it? Both the TV aired version and the ones distributed on the web always look as though someone filmed it with some orange filter on the lens. -- MacAddct1984 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is probably just a particular choice by the director, Bryan Singer. The Filmaker 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh guys, the series pilot was filmed in black & white and then colourized, with the exception of the establishing shots and the interior of the school which used full colour. Now why this was done, is unknown. Perhaps it was initially done as a way of linking it with the working title of "Chasing Zebras", with the idea of doing the series in black & white. Evil Doctor 1 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot
The plot is a bit long. For a 42 min episode, is there a reason it's 600 words? It's a blow-by-blow of the show, with the only thing missing being the actual dialogue exchange (which is still kind of seen in paraphrased form). It needs to be trimmed; there is no reason why it should be 600 words long, when feature length films are 600 words and twice as long as a television episode.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah, but this is a complicated medical television show, not a feature film. It's 42 minutes long, not 90 mins. We don't need detail for detail on the diagnoses. Everything they guess, and turns out to be wrong isn't necessary. You could summarize their mistakes into more concise sentences, instead of just relaying each of them as they happened.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited it slightly. The issue is that there is more than your average television episode's worth of exposition in the Pilot. You can also understand that 600 words is a guideline, one which I somewhat disagree with, but it also has leeway as for complicated plots. 600 words is possibly good for a horror film, but for a complicated mystery medical diagnosis, it's different. In other words, it's subjective to every article. The Filmaker 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The plot section is fine right now. &mdash; Deckiller 20:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Television/Episodes - "Plot synopses will obviously vary in depth, but don't write scene-by-scene descriptions". When I read this plot, it tells me everything that happens, scene-by-scene. You cannot compare style guidelines for a feature length film with that of a television show, that isn't even half the time of most feature length films. It's using the film plot guidelines to get around the "not detail for detail" guidelines. Just because it meets the 600 word limit of the film guidelines doesn't mean that it's ok to have scene by scene explainations.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll point out, that it was you who first compared the plot section to film guidelines (600 words). But I digress. The concept that we cannot include the attempts the team makes in treating the patient completely defeats the purpose of a story or a summary. By your reasoning the summary could simply be put down as "Rebecca Adler gets dysphasic. House, after a series of misdiagnoses eventually diagnoses her with cysticercosis. Thus ending the case." Further more, the section is not a total play-by-play of the episode. An entire subplot involving the team discussing amongst each other why House hired each of them is omitted. This culminates in a scene between Cameron and House at the end as well, which is also not in the plot section. Also, at least one, likely more, differential diagnosis scene(s) are not present. The Filmaker 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What I pointed out was that you are using the film guideline as the episode guideline, and that this plot is 600 words, which is a bit much for a 42 minute show. Also, Television episodes, which states that you should have a brief summary of the episode. That which is on this page is not brief.
 * This:"Afterward, House is approached at the elevator by hospital administrator Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein), who attempts to persuade House to fulfill his duties at the hospital's walk-in clinic, a task he loathes because of the uncomplicated nature of the cases brought to him. House refuses, claiming that Cuddy cannot fire him, and hurriedly leaves. Later, when House's team attempts to perform an MRI on Adler, they discover that House's authorization has been revoked. House confronts Cuddy, accusing her of disrespect and risk to a patient's life. Cuddy grants him authorization for diagnostics in exchange for his required attendance in the clinic." A little extraneous. It could be summed up to just the imporant pieces (House won't do clinic duty, Cuddy revokes MRI privileges, Cuddy gives back privies when House agrees to work the clinic.....although I'd expect complete sentences).
 * This:"House, while working in the hospital's clinic, treats a ten-year-old boy whose mother allows him to use his asthmatic inhaler only intermittently, instead of daily, as her son's doctor prescribed. The mother's reasoning is that the idea of children "taking such strong medicine so frequently" bothers her greatly. House sarcastically scolds her for making such a drastic decision without first learning more about asthma." The specifics of the clinic are not important, other than that he gets an idea for steroids. House sarcastically scolding someone, or the mother's ignorance of inhalers is irrelevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia.
 * This:"...might account for Adler's symptoms—seizures; dysphasia; airway constriction; and positive, if transient, response to steroids." Reason why we have to list all the symptoms? Kind of makes it a substitution for watching the show, which is what we are supposed to avoid.   BIGNOLE '    (Contact me)  21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Article history
Why can I not view the version of the page before October 31, 2006? --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because that was the day the article was created...or recreated. If it got deleted prior to this then it wouldn't have the history that happened then.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may have to do with the deleted content from when it used to be a copyvio. The Filmaker 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Adler = Another Homes Connection?
Since 'House' has so many connections to Sherlock Holmes, should the possibility that Adler is a refernce to Irene Adler be mentioned? Or has it already been disproven, or? Ayries 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The information is already present in the article at the end of the Behind the Scenes section. The Filmaker 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion
At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), 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) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential source
Unofficial House guide at -81.139.76.64 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Formating
I'm new to all of this, so I don't know how to do it myself, or if there's a reason, but why is this page formatted differently from those for the rest of the season? Comradephate (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way? The infobox used is for general television episodes, if that's what you mean; this was done to preserve integrity with other FA-class episode articles (the only real difference is less ugly formatting of the episodes list, and a lack of the diagnosis element.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand. It just seemed odd that no other episode has the same "episode chronology" element. That element was replaced with a drop-down menu of sorts, along with some minor stylistic changes in the rest of the entries. -Comradephate (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

←Well, I'm asking the question again, because I don't understand. Is this the extent of the discussion that took place regarding the use of the generic infobox instead of the House-specific infobox in use for the 100+ following episodes? I am interested in the reasoning behind the decision, and any discussion that took place, as just a statement that the other infobox is "uglier" doesn't seem to me to be compelling, nor is the argument that this brings this pilot in line with other FA-class episode articles. Maybe there is discussion elsewhere, and if so, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. Seems to me that having this article conform to other House episodes is more of a consideration than having it conform to the pilots of other tv-series. But maybe there's more to it - I'd appreciate some more information here. And, as I said elsewhere, I'm not particularly commenting on or defending the aesthetics of either design - I'm merely saying that the one designed by someone for this series has a different form, and other information, than this one does. So I'm asking why it was decided to not change it. This is not at all a big deal, but since my good faith update was reverted twice, I think a response is in order. Thanks. Tvoz / talk 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where exactly I brought up the infobox issues; I thought it was either at the WikiProject or the template talk, but apparently not. Oh well. Anyway, I never really got a meaningful response as I could recall. My main reasons for changing it to the default infobox were as follows: one, it is commonly and broadly used by other FA television episodes, e.g. "200", "The Beginning of the End", "Trapped in the Closet". Two, the only differences and thus reason for having a separate infobox is the diagnosis field and the specialized season listing. I would say that the diagnosis is trivial, especially as its already singled out in the episode list. The season list can be replicated easily using the default template, without the ungainly colors, and without a lot of template syntax and such, just a simple transclusion; in comparison, the House infoboxes go through snafus like Infobox House (TV series) season episode list and such. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I appreciate the response. I'm not going to push it - as I said I don't think it's a big deal either way - but I don't buy the logic of the horizontal commonality of FA episodes being more important than the vertical commonality of episodes of the same series.  I'd suggest agitating for improvements to the series template instead of ignoring it, but whatever.  Does anyone else even care?  Judging by how the series template was misused, I wonder if anyone is even reading (previous and next episodes "unknown", and no no one noticed? bizarre).  Anyway, thanks for responding.  Cheers Tvoz / talk 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

libre images
I like the idea of incorporating some more libre-licensed images if they're appropriate, but I'm lockstep agreement with in reverting these inclusions. What about using these images&mdash;both of which are found at Wikimedia Commons&mdash;of Shore (File:David Shore Cropped.jpg) and Laurie (File:Hugh Laurie 2009.jpg)? Much better images I think. Bear in mind of course, that these aren't the only images of these men at Commons, just the ones I liked best. Thoughts? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd much prefer those ones if we have to, but I'm concerned in general about spamming the same free images on articles with relatively tangental relationships to the images. No article needs to have images, and I'd much rather they be significant than pure decoration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The combination of the photo of Laurie with the show's logo seems to be a very shady area when it comes to copyright trademark law. This photo is not of the character House, nor is it in any way approved by Fox. I suggest we either use the photo of Laurie or the logo, but not both in conjunction implying an official nature to the photo.

It also is a poor identifier for the pilot episode, and I don't know if it needs to appear in the infobox at all. If a good-quality image can't be found, there's no need for any image. —Noisalt (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC) (edited)
 * The combined image is hideous and unnecessary. There is a better libre-licensed photo of Laurie linked in the immediately preceding section.  I furthermore don't see any need for any image in the infobox.  I concur with your findings.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This offending image has just been removed from MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pilot as title
""Pilot", also known as "Everybody Lies",[1] is the first episode of the television series House."

I think the proper phrasing would be something like:

"The pilot of the television series House is also its first episode, alsa known as "Everybody Lies."

Because the word pilot in the title refers of course to it's being the series pilot. It's like Life on Mars, where Episode 3 is titled Episode 3. You can't say that Episode 3 was the 3rd episode of Life on Mars. This is something like a placeholder. 81.182.237.222 (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in full agreement, but treating the word "pilot" as an episode title has an unfortunate precedent on Wikipedia. See Pilot (Supernatural) (current FA), Pilot (Friday Night Lights) (current GA), and Pilot (Lost) (delisted GA).  These examples show a poor understanding of television naming conventions, IMO. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Treating the word "pilot" as an episode title is uniformly done, because the alternative, using "the pilot episode" every single time, is clunky and damn useless. Not to mention your proposed wording sounds awful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You say "damn useless", I say "technically correct". Also, I think you meant to reply to the anon IP, not to me. ;) María ( habla  con migo ) 15:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this discussion reminds me of the story about some ancient philosophers who were trying to determine how many teeth a horse has. They debated for days about whether God would give a horse more or fewer teeth than humans. No one bothered to open the horse's mouth and count them. In situations like this, it's usually best to go directly to the source. Fox can call the first episode anything they wish. If they wanted to call it "The First Show", or "We Haven't Named This Episode" they could. For whatever reason, if you look at Fox's page describing the episode, you'll see that they call it "Pilot". Now, they may have given the alternate title, Everybody Lies, that some source picked up along the way, but there is nothing wrong with using the title "Pilot" if it is used by Fox, regardless of personal preferences, or Wikipedia precedent, or how it's done for other shows. Cresix (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Pilot (House). 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090109183843/http://www.star-ecentral.com:80/news/story.asp?file=/2007/9/17/tvnradio/18869314&sec=tvnradio to http://www.star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=/2007/9/17/tvnradio/18869314&sec=tvnradio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Misquote
There was a section of the article that didn't make grammatical sense, so I checked the source it referred to and it's clear the intended meaning at the ending was mangled and I believe an edit should be made.

Wikipedia Article Text: "Shore wrote the pilot with a vivid memory of a doctor's visit:[4] he once had to wait two weeks to get a doctor's appointment for a sore hip, by which point his pain had disappeared. Nevertheless, Shore stated that the doctors were "incredibly polite". Shore later stated that, as he wrote the pilot, he fell in love with a character who, as a doctor, would actually ask the question "Why am I wasting your time?".[4]"

Actual Source Text: [4] "As he wrote the pilot, Shore drew upon the memory of a sore hip. The earliest he could get a doctor’s appointment was two weeks. By the time it came, the pain was gone — but he went anyway. ”The doctors were incredibly polite, and I couldn’t help thinking, ‘Why?! I am wasting your time!”’ says Shore. ”Writing House, I fell in love with the idea of a guy who would actually say that to a patient.”"

- So basically, David Shore, after incredulously wondering 'Why?!' would doctors be incredibly polite to him despite having no medical problems, is saying he fell in love with the idea of a doctor who would actually say "You're wasting my time!" to a patient - not a doctor who says "Why am I wasting your time?" which makes no sense as written in the wiki article. 138.229.19.48 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Years later but I've reworded this a little bit—this also stuck out to me. In future you can make such improvements yourself (see WP:BOLD). — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pilot (House). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921222504/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/24686 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/24686
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209154022/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112304_07 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112304_07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pilot (House). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913031621/http://www.hulu.com/watch/21606/house-house---developing-the-concept to http://www.hulu.com/watch/21606/house-house---developing-the-concept
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109115833/http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C23739%2C20517580-5003422%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C23739%2C20517580-5003422%2C00.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msfgm4NE?url=http://television.aol.com/tv-celebrity-interviews/omar-epps to http://television.aol.com/tv-celebrity-interviews/omar-epps
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002001/http://www.emmys.org/awards/2005pt/awards/music.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/2005pt/awards/music.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716043001/http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-1/episode-01.htm to http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-1/episode-01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. James Wilson attempts to convince Gregory House to treat Adler, but House initially dismisses him, believing that the case would be boring.
I just watched this episode again in 2019, after watching the series when it originally aired 15 years ago, and having a knowledge of the characters from the past, to me it did not seem that Dr. House thought that the case was boring, he was saying that Dr. Wilson's field, Oncology, was boring in comparison to his field. It was East Coast USA sarcasm, and being a native, that's how it came across to me. While I'm grateful to everyone that contributes to Wikipedia, the "plot section" is missing many of the plot subtleties that were conveyed through the tone of the dialogue. House was ribbing his friend Dr. Wilson, like male friends do, and he was never seriously pondering not taking his only friend's cousin's medical case. He was going to help from the second he asked. That's just how MISUNDERSTOOD guys like House communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

FA Sweeps
Reviewing as part of the 2020 FA sweeps. Plot and lead is fine. Production goes a bit off-topic to broader context of the first season/conception, and it would be good to shorten it and introduce concrete detail about the pilot itself (the Berton Roueché fact is really all there is). Is there DVD commentary available? Or the source The House That Hugh Laurie Built linked above may be good. There are also a couple of weird sentences like Epps and co-star Jennifer Morrison read the scripts and believed that the show would be either a hit or miss (well, what else could it be?).

The Reception and lack of Analysis section is the main issue. The two paragraphs of reviews have little structure, overuse quotes and do not contain much meaningful information. See Copyediting reception sections. It would be good to have an Analysis section saying things like "In contrast to later episodes, the pilot was shot with this filming style" or "The pilot establishes the format of each episode being centered around one patient" or "These tropes reoccur in X, Y, Z" or "The finale later mirrors this bit of the structure". Additionally, more meaningful reviewer commentary is needed: paragraphs with topic sentences could address in turn reception to the characterization and acting; the plot; the premise/format etc.

The article is about GA-quality at the moment, possibly GA-and-a-half, but below the contemporary FA standard. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Bilorv wanted to check in with you and see how you felt the article was developing. There's one or two more sources I want to track down and check, but I've added an Analysis section, slimmed down the Production section to focus more on the pilot episode rather than the show in general (I left a bit more in on Laurie since he's a major part of the development of the show and gets covered in the reviews) and reworked the reception section to be a little more thematically-organized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * excellent news! Yes, this addresses all of my concerns. Perhaps there are sections that can be expanded further, but I am happy enough at this point to mark as "Satisfactory" for the 2020 sweeps. I've made one tweak here (feel free to re-reword but hopefully the issue is clear). — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)