Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011.

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)

 * Nominator(s): —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a long time, first on the individual articles themselves, then on this overarching season article, as I feel a bottom-to-top approach is the best way to handle a subject of this type. Both this article and the individual episode articles have all passed GA and GT. This particular article has also gone through a peer review, and I believe it's now ready for FA. I am ready and eager to respond to any comments here at the FAC. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Images check out. I have cleaned up a few of the description pages. Concerning File:Homicide s1 s2.png- though some may challenge its use, it looks legitimate to me, however, it would be worth specifying in the caption that it is for both the first and second season, and, secondly, it could perhaps do with being scaled down a little. But, basically, fine. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated the image caption. As for the resolution of the pic, I'll scale it down tonight when I get my hands on my own computer/Photoshop. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Downgraded the resolution. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources
 * Use a consistent date formatting
 * I believe I've removed all instances of the YYYY-MM-DD formatting, so it should be consistent now. If I missed any please let me know. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 8, 77: why include a publisher here and not for other newspapers cited? Check for others
 * Removed the publisher. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 88 on a quick glance, maybe others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ref 10, 13, 15: punctuation/formatting. Check for other problems
 * Sorry if I'm being dense but can you be more specific about the problem? I believe this is how they were written in the headlines of these stories. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 10 has been fixed, 13 is missing either work or page (I think F25 is the page; if so, there's a formatting issue), 15 is a dash problem in the date range. As I said below, these are examples, there are other refs with formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the ones you pointed out and fixed a few bad endashes in some others but didn't find any other formatting issues. If I missed any, please let me know. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per MoS, we correct some stylistic issues present in titles - for example, single quotes within double quotes, replacing doubled hyphens with endashes, etc. Also check for minor punctuation issues like doubled periods and formatting inconsistencies like the missing page number for 66. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some further changes that I think address what you are talking about, such as the quotes within quotes and the formatting inconsistencies. Please see below about Ref #66. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether or not you include publisher locations
 * Removed publisher location for all the newspapers. Now it's only with the book. Can remove that one too if you like. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter - I think you've only got the one book, so whether you include the location or not the formatting will remain consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest providing time references for audio/video sources, particularly for direct quotes
 * Not to be difficult, but is this really necessary? If so, I can do it, but it will take me some time, because I don't have the disc readily available and will have to get it from Netflix, then it will be time-consuming to find all the instances and determine their exact time references. That being said, I've nominated this for FAC and I'm committed to seeing it through, so I will do if if need be. I just want to make sure it's absolutely needed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the circumstances. For general points it's not as big a deal, and if it were only those I wouldn't even mention it. However, you've got at least one direct quote from an audio source (maybe more, didn't check every one), and that must have a time ref (the same way a quote from a book must have a page ref). Very specific details or personal opinions are borderline - I'll leave those to your judgment. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: That DVD is on the mail on its way to me, so I will take care of this within the next few days. Also, I will be away most of this weekend due to a wedding, so I will also finish addressing the rest of these points after the weekend. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the times. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 37, 44: page(s)? Check for others
 * Added page for one. For the other, there is no page number listed on the Lexis Nexis description. I believe this is because this was an AP report that went out to multiple newspapers, so there is no specific newspaper and page listed for it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For this and other points where I said "check for others", there was at least one other occurrence - I haven't rechecked yet, but make sure you have. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref #94, like the Associated Press reference above, doesn't have a page number because it's a news service, not a single publication. Other than that, I found and fixed a few other refs missing page numbers.
 * 66? (also mentioned above). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no page number for Ref #66. Like the Associated Press reference, Business Wire is a wire service, so there is no page number because it was available to run in multiple publications, not just a single one. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Titles shouldn't be in all-caps, even if they are in the source
 * Dropped it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs 54 and 55: is there a difference between E1 and 1E? If not, be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of one newspaper doing it one way and another doing it the other. The Baltimore Sun does it number-letter, and the Patriot-News does it letter-number. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do me a favor and please strike the comments that have been addressed above so I know which ones are left and still need work. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did so, and left some replies inline above. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - When was there a push to start listing crew members? I was reading over that section and it's basically a list masquerading as prose. It's not offense to your work, but not even the film project lists out what appears to be every last crew member from their productions. Per WP:MOSTV, which isn't the be-all-end-all (but it's something), the only reason to list any crew members outside of the infobox would be if they did something significant during the production and thus would be covered when discussing the event itself. The brings a new question into consideration that would not be determinable on this page but would require extensive discussion elsewhere, but does the season infobox need to be updated to include additional parameters for crew members like the general TV infobox does? As of right now it doesn't, but to me half of the people in the crew section wouldn't normally be listed anywhere else other than IMDb to begin with. Just as an example, I have no idea what a supervising producer and coordinating producer are. I thought all producers supervised and coordinated. Or the fact that all of the screenwriters are listed in the episode table, and then again in the Crew section. It just seems unnecessary to me.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, so I've significantly scaled back the Crew section, eliminating many of the crew members and the directors/screenwriters that were already listed in the Episodes section. The only information I've left in is what I feel is substantive and useful, but let me know if you think it needs further trimming. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the trim worked. I think the information left is information that is relevant and something more than just a listing of who worked on the film. I think it has context and substance which is good.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1) "The first season received consistently strong reviews..." - What is a "strong" review? I mean, to me and most people for that matter, it's obvious. But for the purposes of writing and being neutral, it's probably best to keep it simply "positive" or "negative". Besides, "strong" can be "strong negative" just as easily.
 * 2) *Changed to positive. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Is it possible to just summarize the awards into a solid sentence instead of almost restating exactly what's in the Awards section? I know there is a bit more detail and an acceptance speech in the section, but it just seems like a lot of detail for the lead.
 * 4) *I made it one sentence, let me know if it needs further tweaking. Or feel free to tweak yourself! :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) "Unable to find evidence against a brutal murder suspect, Howard seeks help from the victim's ghost." - Does Howard actually see/speak to this ghost? If not, then that is what the sentence is implying.
 * 6) *Changed to "tries to seek". —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) **I think my concern was more how they were "seeking" the help. The show doesn't strike me as having supernatural elements, so when I read the statement it makes it seem like there is a ghost appearing on the show. I saw later it says her partner helps her by consulting a tarot reader. Is that how she is trying to contact the ghost, or is she doing something else? I mean, when I read it I get images of Medium, and I am assuming that that is not the case.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) "Final appearance of Medical Examiner Carol Blythe." - Seems kind of random and out of place for a plot summary.
 * 9) *I believe first and last appearances are often mentioned in season articles. But I don't feel strongly, so I removed it. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) *True, but can it not be mentioned in the "Cast" section?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than that, not really a lot wrong with the article. I took the liberty of merging a 2 sentence paragraph and removing image size restrictions as the MOS says that IP readers usually get a default size and readers with a low screen resolution would have images taking up more space than normal because of the restricted size. Also, we're supposed to alternate sides with visuals so that it balances the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They were placed that way because during the GA review it was said the images should point toward the article, not away from. For example, Barry Levinson should be looking at the article, not in the opposite direction. But it doesn't matter to me, your way is fine and probably does balance the article better. Thanks for the review, Bignole! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct as well, and you should be allowed to create mirror images of the pictures so that the eyes do point toward the article. I didn't go through and photoshop them for that purpose though.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - My issues are addressed, and it appears that the other issues from the other editors are addressed. Hopefully, they will return and either provide more critiques, or voice their support as I have after my comments were responded to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Bignole. Very much appreciated. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I peer reviewed this and felt it was pretty close to FA quality then. Having just reread it and made a few minor copyedits (please revert me if I made things worse), I think it meets the FA criteria. I have a few nit-picks, which do not detract from my support. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Episode 2 summary, this seems to be an error:  Meanwhile, Secor continues his investigation into the murder of 11-year-old Adena Watson. A rookie detective on his first case, Bayliss has trouble emotionally detaching from her death, and Al "Gee" Giardello (Yaphet Kotto) demands he show more confidence. Secor is the name of the actor, Bayliss is the name of the character Secor plays.
 * Quite right! Fixed the error. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Episode 5 summary, "...by identifying hidden insecurities about them." is awkward. Perhaps ...by identifying their hidden insecurities. would be better?
 * Yes, your wording is better. Replaced. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Episode 9 summary, would Meanwhile, Howard learns her sister's husband has been cheating on her, ... be clearer as Meanwhile, Howard learns her brother-in-law has been cheating on her sister,...?
 * That is also better. Replaced. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing word in the Conception section? The book contradicted many popular myths that had been built in [to?] past police dramas: it portrayed the detectives as not always getting along with each other and...
 * Added the missing word. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this be clearer? ''Both Belzer and [the character] Munch [he portrays] are cynical, caustic former hippies who are so similar that Belzer declared the character "exactly as I would be if I were a cop".[28]
 * Added suggested language. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Writing section, tighten this? These consistency errors were addressed by Homicide producers by adding the words "One hot night, last September..." to the beginning of the episode...
 * I removed the struck word. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for your review, and for the peer review in the first place! I really appreciate your efforts! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead is solid. from Cryptic C62, Emperor of the Semi-Imaginary nation of Buldesia.

Other than these nitpicks, I am happy with the lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of the lead is written as though the show is fictional, but this sentence implies the opposite: "the season followed the detectives of Baltimore Police Department homicide unit and the murder cases they investigate." Perhaps the "fictional" or "fictitious" should be inserted to clarify the matter.
 * Added "fictional" to the lead. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "a season-high viewership of 18.24 million households" For some reason, the phrase "18.24 million" just doesn't feel right to me. In my experience, this number would usually be written as 18.2 million or 18,240,000. Of those two, I have no preference.
 * I changed it in the lead. I'd rather keep the numbers as they are in the Episodes table, since the information is more specific that way and it seems to fit better there to me than int he lead, but if I have to I can scale it back there as well. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A well written article that as far as I can see meets all of the criteria for a featured article on Wikipedia. Well done. Coolug (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have essentially no online sources, I'm wondering how a source check (close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources) could be done. Are none of your news sources available online? That's incredible. USA Today, Time, several others I see usually are available online-- could you please review your sources and provide convenience links so a source check can be done. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I got almost all my non-book sources through Lexis Nexis or Newsbank so I didn't have URLs for them. However, I've found some links for them and added them to the article. Hopefully this should be enough for a source check. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now to get someone to do a source check! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I be seeking someone to ask to do it? Or just wait now that the links are there? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't show up in about 24 hours, you could post a request for a source check at WT:FAC-- some folks stalk my edits, though, and will notice. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - 7 sources checked. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was important for Barry Levinson..." - why exclude the bracketed portion from the original? Also, it seems from the source that it's the author who's calling this episode risky, not Fontana himself
 * I didn't use the brackets because they were added to the original quote to give context to who he is, but this article already had the context so I thought it unnecessary. However, I added it back. As far as the whole "risky" thing, the author may be the first one to suggest the episode was risky, but by Fontana's quote, he's certainly acknowledging that it was indeed risky, so I think the current wording is appropriate. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "simultaneously funny and harrowing" is a direct quote from the source, and should either be set with quotation marks or reworded
 * My mistake. Quotes added. 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Additions to quotes should be notated with square brackets, not parentheses
 * I think the only place I did this wrong was at: ([as if) trying to signal, 'See how much better we are than ordinary television". I fix it, but if I missed something, let me know. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beatty claimed Levinson "pushed, dragged and hauled" him into accepting the role" - no, according to the source that quote refers to Beatty's agents and managers, and they got him to meet Levinson, not accept the role
 * Fixed. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Time article praises not the lack of "two-dimensional" violence, but the lack of any violence at all
 * That's sort of what I meant by the original wording, but I've removed the "two-dimensional" bit to be clear. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "strong cast" is verbatim from the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added quotes. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.