Talk:Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   • "which confirms that his DNA is a match" - not clear what it is a match to - won't his DNA be found in his hotel room anyway?
   • "new show runner" - what is a show runner?
   • "the case was shaken" - could you reword this? - not encyclopedic wording.
   • "candidacy was derailed. " - to close to source - I added "presidential" - but find another word than "derailed"
   • "but what it really lacked was the back-and-forth between Benson and Stabler." - what does this mean? - the source explains a little more and this would explain some of the dynamics normally in the show.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • Should mention in lede the real world events, as these received a great deal of publicity and the plot of the show is largely driven by it.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   • "thought that the mixed verdict was disappointing" - this seems to misrepresent the NYTimes review which said "It was disappointing in dramatic terms but understandable, when the result was a mixed verdict."

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   • article could have said more about the representation of a rape case in prime time TV, as discussed in sources
   • Could explain more about the dynamics between characters in show (see above)
   • Also, there is some discussion in the sources about whether this show is becoming "stale" and what the introduction of new characters are aiming to accomplish.

   B. Remains focused:

   • Det. Nick Amaro (absent) - why is he mentioned in the Cast if he isn't in the episode?
   • "Neal Baer, who departed after getting a three-year deal at CBS and went on to serve as an executive producer on the Susannah Grant created CBS medical drama, A Gifted Man." - isn't this a little off topic?

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No images

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The article is off to a good start. It just needs some filling in and clarification. I have made some edits[1] but you are free to revert. Please feel free to contact me with questions or feedback. Meanwhile, I'll put it on hold. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)