Talk:Hill Street Station/GA1

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

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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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"
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)