Talk:True Detective/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am starting a GA Review for this article. It is truly *massive* so please be patient with me as I work my way through all the various sections and parameters. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will be going through the various sections in order and then filling out the GA Criteria towards the end of my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Clear, easy to read, sticks to the verifiable facts. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Reference #34 is from Chicago Trubune and should probably be web-archived. Please check Reference #59 - looks like the server might be down?Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that Ref #34 has a web-archive link anyway & #59 seems to be working now - never mind. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I fixed those sources. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - all looks good to go. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Looks good so far but want to read bit more to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable content. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Hard to get images from media productions that are held so tightly by their corporate owners - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing one more readthrough to see if I missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's a GA. Going forward, to me possible future improvements would include finding CC-BY-SA or PD images for the article - of the actors, any locales that were used, etc.  I do understand how difficult it is getting images for a show that is under copyright etc, but anyway....if possible, more images would be my wish for the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Hard to get images from media productions that are held so tightly by their corporate owners - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing one more readthrough to see if I missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's a GA. Going forward, to me possible future improvements would include finding CC-BY-SA or PD images for the article - of the actors, any locales that were used, etc.  I do understand how difficult it is getting images for a show that is under copyright etc, but anyway....if possible, more images would be my wish for the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead
Looks fine - lays out who has starred in the series, its creator/writing/production team, the network, the general timeline of its development - and so gives the notability claims - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Production
Good research, timeline is well-developed (no big gaps - yay), prose & grammar are correct. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast & crew
Looks good. Well-written, good research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Episodes
Both Season 1 and Season 2: good writing, research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception
Critical response, Accolades, Ratings

The only problem I see in this general section is the Ratings sub-section is completely unsourced. This section will have to be referenced before I can finish up the Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The ratings sub section is now sourced and archived. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I thought that Ratings was unsourced - in the course of my Review maybe I was looking at an old/outdated version?...sheesh, I have no idea. Anyway, it's good to go now. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you where right. The ratings sub-section was unsourced. I just sourced and archived it couple of hours ago. - AffeL (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok... it's just that when I look at the edit history it's showing your last edit as being on Feb 25th. Maybe something to do with the page cache? Anyway, it's fixed - yay! Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The ratings section (and its edit history) is actually located at . – Rhain  ☔ 06:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more readthroughs
I will give this article a few more deep reads to see what I might have missed previously. The major issue at this point is the unreferenced "Ratings" subsection. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)