Talk:17th Precinct

17th Precinct has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 9, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the unaired pilot for 17th Precinct was briefly leaked online in December 2011?

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:17th Precinct/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could do with a couple of additions as it doesn't currently cover all the sections. As I read it the plot, production and release sections are covered, so just something from casting and reception needs to be added.
The cite after Excelsior would be better tidied after the next punctuation mark.
The fifteen years previously bit - is that in flashback? If so, could it be said to be one, as it feels like it comes out of nowhere.
The cast section mostly has two citations for each - but they need to be flipped for each so that they're in numerical order.
Link io9, also from a pedantic point of view, is it possible to rewrite that sentence so it doesn't start with io9? Just that way it doesn't look wrong by not having any capitalisation at the start of a sentence. Totally not a review requirement.

A good article about a series that I presume there isn't a great deal of information about. Personally I think it is crazy that they went with Grimm over this - after Battlestar, Moore should have been given free reign to produce whatever show that he liked, especially keeping some of the same cast!! Nuts, but I never even knew this occurred before reading this article. Miyagawa (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the lede a bit; please let me know what you think.
Are you talking about the [1] citation? It's a citation for the name of the city itself; where did you think it should go exactly? You said "after the next punctuation mark", but the next punctuation mark is the open parentheses.
It's not a flashback. In the episode, the police follow up on leads leading them to the deputy mayor which leads them to his girlfriend who is the sister of Lionel Dixon. For a while the deputy mayor is a suspect in the murder, but during his testimony he leads them back to the girlfriend. Investigating the girlfriend, the discover that she's the subject of a "judicial wipe". They go to the retired judge's house to get more information but encounter Lionel and his sister there trying to murder the judge. After the kerfuffle, the judge fills them in on Leo's history, his conviction, and his acquittal. That was a lot of plot to get through to get to the story of Lionel Dixon, so I skipped over it all and summarized it. I've tried to lesson the shock of the "fifteen years previously"; its not much, but let me know what you think.
Do they need to be in numerical order? I went ahead and flipped them, but I'm curious: is there a guideline or such that wants citations in numerical order?
That's easy-peasy to change. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for reviewing the article for me! I look forward to hearing back from you. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the queries. I'm happy with the changes (although still astonished that they dropped a follow up series by the cast and crew of Battlestar. The numerical order thing - I thought it was a guideline, but I can't find it now that I've looked for it. But regardless, I'm happy that this meets the GA criteria. BTW, I was about to add that the image of Moore was fine as I've used it in a couple of and spotted that it appeared in Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation). I started looking through that article and was thinking that it looked like it could go to GA... yeah, I did it in March last year and totally forgot I'd even started on it. Even now I don't remember doing it. So there you go, review karma! Passing now. Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 reversions

On 3 December 2021 at 16:48 UTC, I said in my edit summary, - anachronistic sourcing; and + HTML comments for exhausted sources;. Those particular edits were again undone by CreecregofLife (talk · contribs) who said, What are the exhausteds about?

Anachronistic sourcing means that, when those articles were written and published, the source was io9. Now, since then, io9 has been wholly absorbed into a different website, but not only do the original URLs still work, but it's disingenuous of us to say that the current incarnation of the website was the source publisher in 2011. As for the HTML comments, they note the exhaustion of sources, meaning that the source has been exhausted for the purposes of this article.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask here rather than reverting again (IAW WP:BRD). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]