Talk:Law & Order: Criminal Intent season 1/GA1

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

Started review. Was actually started some time ago, via IRC discussions  Chzz  ►  08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has good sources, seems neutral, has no banners, no edit warring and not a current event. It therefore passes the 'Quick fail' criteria. Full review beginning

Several issues were resolved via discussion on IRC;


 * The lede did not start with a clear explanation of the subject
 * DABS - in 'distribution'  EST and 'Hiatus'
 * note re hiatus: Hiatus doesn't have a relevant article, but as it's an important TV-term, I've left it in Matthewedwards : Chat


 * Grammar, punctuation and spelling
 * Should be all done now. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * primetime should be "prime time"?  US English
 * Done Matthewedwards : Chat


 * The russian ref, language, should link to 'Russian language' (or whatever the article is);  same goes for French
 * Done Matthewedwards : Chat


 * Lede "Four actors received star billing in the first season"  - is this covered in the main article?
 * yes. Cast section Matthewedwards : Chat

Ongoing fixes
 * There were excess links
 * Too much repetition of "Law and Order:Criminal Intent"
 * Changed some instances to "The series" or "The season", as I hate to see "L&O:CI" or just "Criminal Intent" Matthewedwards : Chat

Queries that were answered
 * Should there be a summary of the summaries - ie a plotline?
 * "Not applicable, as each episode is self contained; no story arc over the season; no real in-depth details into the detectives' lives or their working relationship"


 * In 'smothered', could 'sociopath' be linked to the more relevent of the articles that that lists?
 * "Not sure which one of Sociopath they meant. I don't remember the character being so specific" Matthewedwards : Chat

Redirects
 * In 'smothered', could 'sociopath' be linked to the more relevent of the articles that that lists?
 * See above. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * In 'poison', 27th precinct redirects to Law & Order; this is prob wrong? to Law & Order - no specific section - hence it doesn't explain what 27th Precinct *is*
 * 27th Precinct is the fictional precinct of the Law & Order detectives, but as there is no section I've removed it. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * In 'pardoner's tale', governor's office is redir to the 'real' List of Governors of New York - prob wrong?
 * Removed. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * In ref 14, Tribune News Service is redir to the company - probably should be one of the subsidiaries; maybe they changed name or someth?
 * ref 14 uses |agency=Knight Ridder |publisher=Tribune News Service in template; Changed to Tribune Publishing Matthewedwards :  Chat


 * Lede para 3 "utilised" US Eng should be "utilized" ?
 * Em-en changes done. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * Multiple wikilinks are permitted in different sections, but please check if they are appropriate: Amazon Video on Demand Casting Society of America confession Constantine Makris Courtney B. Vance crime drama Dick Wolf Entertainment Weekly Faith Five Geoffrey Neigher Hallmark Channel iTunes Store James Deakins Jamey Sheridan Jones Kathryn Erbe Law & Order franchise Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Manhattan Marlane Gomard Meyer murder NBC Network Ten New York City Police Department One One Police Plaza organized crime Oz police procedural local color René Balcer Robert Goren Ron Carver Smothered Studios USA network TF1 The Faithful The Hollywood Reporter Theresa Rebeck trial Tuxedo Hill TV Guide TV3 TVShowsOnDVD.com Universal Studios Home Entertainment Variety Vincent D'Onofrio
 * I've gone through the links. Most are either used in the Lede then again once somewhere in the main prose or are used in references as publishers or something. Cast and crew names are mentioned in the Lede and again in the cast section. Publication titles are mentioned in the reception section and again in references. Some legal/police terms are also used in the Lede and production sections. I think they're all relevant to either TV or crime drama so they're better left in. Matthewedwards : Chat


 * File:Criminal Intent cast.jpg|thumb|250px    -does the size really need to be specified?
 * Yes, it needs specifying, the image is tiny as a thumb Matthewedwards : Chat


 * Ref 6 - publication date?
 * None available Matthewedwards : Chat


 * ref 11 has pub date, but it is in a different place to the others; it's toward the end of the ref, rather than in brackets at the start
 * because there's no author given, the template puts the date elsewhere


 * ref 17; http://www.webcitation.org/5f4Cya5tg failed URL
 * changed to NBC original site Matthewedwards : Chat


 * Book references preferably should include city of publication (not essential) - easy enough to add?
 * In the 'cast' pic, I think that there is no point in re-linking the names, as they're linked in the text alongside. What do you think?
 * on that specific pic - "An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria)"

Grammar
 * last sentence in Lede;  "can be viewed in syndication in the US"  - seems clumsy... could it be ""has been syndicated in the US"  or something?
 * "A DVD of the season was released"  - not one DVD;   a boxset? or something?
 * same bit  "and episodes are also available to purchase"     - "also" is redundant
 * production, "is the third series in the crime drama Law & Order franchise"  should that be "is the third series in the Law & Order crime drama franchise" ?
 * 1st part of 'production' is hard work to read;  I'll try and come back to that later. Too many repeats of the names...might be possible to combine some phrases. Anyway - can do that later.
 * "Episodes do not usually contain trials"  - is it possible to quantify that?   'usually' is a bit vague
 * "and often end in confessions"


 * refs 26 to 30  - I think it would be appropriate to use the 'air date' they give as the publication date - what do you think?
 * technically wrong. The page was probably there a couple of days before the broadcast so fans could find out about the forthcoming show

 Chzz  ►  20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Final review
I have now checked over the article several times; I have made quite a lot of edits to hopefully improve things, and I have had help from several other people.

Checking over the criteria;

1. Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Yes - I believe that it is now up to GA standards; it is difficult and challenging to write good, neutral prose concerning a television series, and improvements could be made (see later) - but I have checked the spelling and grammar, and made corrections.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * The sections are logical and laid out correctly; jargon issues have been addressed; it covers the fictional topic with neutral and encyclopasedic language.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * Yes - the references check out, they appear to be reliable sources, and their formatting is consistent.
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
 * There is no contentious material, and all facts are referenced in-line
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * Everything appears verifiable

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * There is considerable details, and possibly a little too much on the details of the series as a whole - but I feel that this can be addressed as the other articles in the subject area are developed. The main topics are covered well.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Yes

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No evidence of any edit-warring

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * (a)images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Yes
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Yes

I can therefore now pass this as a Good Article. Notes on future development will follow.  Chzz  ►  10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)