Talk:Tulsa King/GA1

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

Reviewer: Butlerblog (talk · contribs) 17:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article over the next couple of days. Will you be available to discuss any questions/comments/issues? Thanks for nominating it. Butler Blog  (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I should be able to respond to any messages within 48 hours. Thank you for picking this review up!  The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have mostly completed my review and am in the process of putting together the notes so I can post it here. It mostly passes.  However, there are a couple of items that could stand to be addressed.  First, the Premise section is a little on the light side and could benefit from a little more coverage (like double what you have), although that's not a major issue and it could pass with what it has.
 * The more pressing issue is the review section. It's thorough with good coverage for sure, but it's almost like a dumping ground of reviews, which doesn't do much for the section's readability.  If there's a unifying theme to each paragraph, I didn't see what it was.  Try to put similar review quotes/summaries together and give some prose to indicate what that is.  For example, one possible approach could be putting positives together, and then a contrasting paragraph of negatives.  Or reviews that cover Sheridan should go together and reviews that cover Stallone should go together.  Give some lead-in prose to indicate that's what is being discussed in the paragraph. If you're able to, it would much be more readable if it wasn't just a repetition of different ways to say "so-and-so said thus-and-such."
 * Lastly (still in the review section), the blockquote is somewhat awkward, almost as if it was just put there to break the two paragraphs, and it hangs there by itself. There doesn't appear to be any reference to it either before or after, and nothing about it makes it much different than other review quotes.  Don't get me wrong - I very much like the quote, and maybe if the other two paragraphs had some unifying theme or related to that quote specifically, then maybe it would work, but as-is, it's not working.  If the two paragraphs remain as just a repetition of "so-and-so said this", then you should reconsider how this blockquote is used.
 * These are a little on the knit picky side, so let me close this with saying that it's good - well-written and good coverage. The main elements are there for GA and I see it passing.  I need to wrap up some of the citation validation and other minor notes.  Let me know if you have any questions.   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Critical response sections definitely aren't my strong suit. Thanks for the advice. I've grouped into three paragraphs: the series overall, Sheridan's/Winter's writing, and Stallone's performance. I grouped the block quote into the writing paragraph, and added some very brief prose as lead-in to the latter two. The RT and MC sentence serves as a lead-in to the first. If you think it still needs a more context, don't hesitate to let me know and I can write it. I've also added onto the premise section. The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick glance shows much improvement! Thanks.  I'll dig more into it and wrap up the review items, but overall it looks really good.   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A very thorough article with good coverage of the subject.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * All of the key MOS:TV sections for a TV series article are present. Episode list appropriately uses episode table/list template (not generic wikicode).  All other sections comply with Manual of Style guidelines.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Uses inline citation style. No original research or evidence of copyright violations were found. Nearly every sentence is cited.  As a note of personal preference, and for possible improvement moving forward, I lean towards not using repetitive cites.  If two or more sentences (or a complete paragraph) is covered by a single citation, it is fine to cite at the end.  Not everyone approaches it that way, and it's not required, but it does improve readability and still meets requirements.  One other related recommendation is in the Casting subsection where there is a sentence with 4 references. None of these are used elsewhere, so for readability, I would recommend they be bundled; otherwise, consider whether all four are needed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It does cover the series thoroughly, with coverage of cast, episodes, production, and critical response. All necessary sections (1b) are covered.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No issues with POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No evidence of instability.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Good use of images. It can sometimes be difficult to find appropriate image files for a newer TV show that meet free use rationale, so this was a good use of what was available without putting in images that are only marginally related.  Images used all have captions and appropriate copyright or free use rationale information.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, a good article. There are comments in the summary that cover opportunities for improvment, but the article is well written and covers the topic well.  Good job!