Talk:Pilot (Numbers)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello. I will review this article. --Edge3 (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Very close to GA status. I've watched this episode before, so I have some background knowledge. My concerns will be listed below:
 * Terry Lake and David Sinclair need to link to the relevant articles.
 * "He tells Don that he can use an equation..." and "Charlie develops the equation" - You don't have to bring up complex mathematical concepts, but at least mention terms such as "mathematics" or "mathematical methods". "Equation" seems too vague.
 * "Charlie's equation yields what he calls a "hot zone"." - Please be more specific.--Edge3 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Don and his team resorts to testing DNA found on discarded coffee cups, chewing gum, and cigarettes..." - Too much detail there. Use "evidence" instead.
 * "Charlie then realizes that he needs to modify his equation to identify two hot zones." - Explain exactly what those two hot zones are.
 * "After the scene is clear..." - How about "After they arrest the suspect..."?
 * "...the suspect lived in the original hot zone but moved three weeks earlier." What is the significance of this fact? Mention that this proved the validity of Charlie's first hot zone. --Edge3 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary needs to have a better balance between too much and too little detail. Use the suggestions listed above as a guide. Other than that, the plot summary looks great! --Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Basis of the pilot's storyline" section should be incorporated into the Production section. --Edge3 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Although they had considered several story ideas in the development of the Pilot, creators Cheryl Heuton and Nicolas Falacci, acknowledging financial crimes' mathematical basis, wanted to feature a case in which math was used to solve a traditional type of crime." - Sentence might be too complex; try breaking that up into two sentences.--Edge3 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rossmo used Rigel" - What or who is Rigel?


 * When you take information from a source, and that information is grouped together in the article, you only have to cite the source once (usually at the end of the cited info). Therefore, ref 3 needs to be cited only once. --Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Scigal kinda works up a storm, then doesn't show her face for several days. If you get tired of waiting, drop me a line before failing, I can probably finish it off. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She seems to be active today, but thanks. --Edge3 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs 12 and 13 should be combined since they are the same. --Edge3 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind --Edge3 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am now passing the article. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-review suggestions
Hope this helps. --Edge3 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Add a few images, especially those that show the mathematical analyses Charlie used.
 * The DVD section seems a bit short. If you want to go to FA, try merging that section into the Production section.
 * Be more comprehensive in the Previews section. It might help to add audiences' reactions to the episode.
 * Thanks. :)  Enigma msg  07:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)