Talk:Hill Street Station/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Gen. Quon in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Last episode of this season to need reviewed.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Wikilink first season
- linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need for references in the lead. Move [1] to a section called "Reception" (more on that later) and [2] and [3] to production.
- O.K. I moved a lot of text with the refs. Not sure if LEAD is full enough.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- "He is compared to the title character in Barney Miller,…" Who is the person comparing him to the title character?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- "…and the show is compared to Barney Miller and Kojak." Again, who is doing the comparing?
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikilink first season
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- I feel that the cast section should be merged into prose and added to the production section. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, per say, but I think it looks rather clunky.
- I would make "Background" into a sub-header of "Plot"
- I think that the "Critical Review" and "Accolades" sections should be made into sub-headers for a larger section called "Reception".
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- You mention that the episode won/was nominated for several awards, but the second part of the paragraph is entirely unsourced.
- The only source that I have for many of these awards is IMDB.com, which is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are there any references out there that give ratings info?
- I don't know how to find ratings content for average shows. Top rated shows seem to pop up in Google News. I am of the impression that the ratings were pedestrian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- You mention that the episode won/was nominated for several awards, but the second part of the paragraph is entirely unsourced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- There's some issues with the article, but I believe it can be fixed up. I will place this on hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- OK, I made some minor changes. I hide the bottom part of the accolades section. It really needs a reference, but I didn't delete it, just used wiki formatting to hide it up until a cite presents itself. Also, I expanded the lead. It was fine the way it was, it just didn't need the references. Other than that, it looks good. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)