Talk:Underbelly series 1/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Underbelly (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Reads well - flows nicely, spelling and grammar are fine. I only have minor concerns. One is with the second paragraph in the lede - it covers five issues - marketing, internet (which is connected to the first), reception, ratings and illegal downloads. Personally I'd be inclined to separate internet/marketing from reception/ratings, simply to keep each paragraph focused (as was the first and third paragraph), and perhaps move the internet downloads to the next paragraph (which refers to distribution). The second is with the section "Prequel" - it may be that there is no choice, but plans to make a prequel, as presented, don't seem to be a "Reception" issue - perhaps it would be better kept in its own small section? Finally, the section "International distribution" is a tad lost - it probably could stay there, but I think it would be work better below Marketing. Your milage may differ, of course. :)
 * The lead looks a bit akward now. Do you think I should just removed the marketing section?  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I might just be wrong on this one. :) I found some nice references, so I'll give it a shot myself. - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to tie the two claims together so that they flow better in one paragraph (I gather it is acceptable for reviewers to help with minor problems), as I agree that they didn't work as two completely separate ones, yet marketing seemed important. Hopefully it is ok. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)\
 * Wow. Okay, really good. It ties together really nicely. Does this section "pass" the criteria now? Thanks.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole thing was very well written anyway. So yes. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Seemed good to me. None of the obvious MoS errors, and reads like an encyclopedic article. - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Everything seemed fine, with references used for pretty much everything. One small issue, though, is that direct quotes should probably be referenced as soon as they are made. You've pretty much done this, but when reading the "Conception" section, you had a series of quotes, and while they all come from the one source this isn't clear from how it has been referenced. It would be helpful if this could be clarified in the text.
 * Better?  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Mostly fine. However, I'm a tad concerned with the heavy use of TV Tonight, which is a blog, and to a lesser extent TV3. In the case of TV3 I just wonder if there might be better sources for the same material, given that it isn't used for anything particular. TV Tonight might be harder to replace, as it seems to be the main source for information about the internet campaign, but I'd like to have it confirmed that it is a reliable source (I believe that blogs can be reliable, but I'm not aware as to how good this one is).
 * I replaced the TV3 reference for that particular piece of information. I will try to replace most of the tvtonight refs.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be helping you with that - I have access to the databases of all the major AU newspapers, and have found a few references that will fix the problems. One of the advantages of academia. I'll work on it when I get back later tonight. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Another question: I just realised that the blog tvtonight is run by David Knox, who is also a reporter to TV.com, http://www.tv.com/story/11099.html. Is TV.com a reliable source? And if so, wouldn't that mean that tvtonight has a bit of credibility? The tvtonight sources should be replaced, but based on this information, I think having a few is still alright. Thoughts?  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The general policy is that self-published sources aren't reliable, unless the author is an expert in the field. I'm happy to give him some credibility based on that. I'd still be wary about using it for anything really important, like court case details, but they've been covered in mainstream media anyway. :) So they'll be easy to find alternative sources for. - Bilby (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the tvtonight refs have been replaced. The only ones that will be hard to replace are the marketing ones. I will be on the lookout for better refs.  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  13:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it - I was about to come here and say that it looks good now. :) The marketing ones aren't really an issue, as I don't see why we can't see the source as reliable for claims about the existence of a website: my concern is when it was giving commentary (or at least descriptions) of legal proceedings, which should warrant a higher level of reliability. Anyway, this section is great now - the otehr references were good, and I think the new ones finish it off well. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * Good. Everything seems to refer back nicely to the sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * This is my biggest concern - for an article about a mini series, I was left with no real idea in regard to what happens in it. I know what it covers, in a general sense, but the synopsis didn't really cover the story so much as mention the characters and the themes. This also results in some imbalance - there is almost more on the legal issues (especially given how much they pervade the rest of the article) than on the miniseries itself. It is well rewritten, well referenced, and very important, but a bit more about the content of the series would help balance things out.
 * I agree. The synopsis needs to cover the storyline, not just who it's about. I have been thinking of fixing this for some time. --BrianFG (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work - the synopsis is great now. It does exactly what it is supposed to, and seems to be a reasonable length given the number of episodes that had to be covered. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have read it almost as soon as I was finished! I took about three attempts at it, so I'm glad it passed the test. --BrianFG (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * B. Does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail?
 * No major concerns. The legal issues tended to intrude, but then that's probably fair enough overall.
 * 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:
 * No hassles. Good pictures (I rather liked the tram) and with appropriate rationales.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I regret not catching the series now - I'll have to watch it after all. In general I think it should pass, once it has more of a synopsis. As someone who hasn't seen the series I'd really like to know a bit more about what it is about, and I suspect someone outside of Australia might be even more lost, given that they may be unaware of the gangland murders. I'd also like to see the references fixed so there isn't so much of a reliance on TV Tonight, unless it is felt that the reference is sufficiently reliable, which I'm not currently convinced of. (On the plus side, it isn't used for anything really controversial). The other issues are minor, and probably more related to style than anything else. Overall it is a solid article that is very well written and referenced. I've put it on hold for a bit, and I'll see if I can dig up some references in the meantime, just in case I can help there. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! :D Okay, first of all, and I know this may come off as a surprise, but I haven't seen the series either! Yeah, I know, I'm in Victoria.... so shame on me (and I haven't bothered to download it). I know of another user who helped with the list of episodes for Underbelly, so I could ask him to fix the synopsis section. Otherwise, the rest of the article I can do something about. Cheers,  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! This is a very good article - I think everyone involved has done a terrific job. I'm really happy to pass it. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)