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

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

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.
 * 1) 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."
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * 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:
 * No images
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * No images
 * 1) 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 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)
 * No images
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * No images
 * 1) 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 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)
 * The article is off to a good start. It just needs some filling in and clarification. I have made some edits 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)
 * The article is off to a good start. It just needs some filling in and clarification. I have made some edits 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?:
 * 2. Factually accurate?:
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:
 * 5. Article stability?:
 * 6. Images?:


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