Talk:Boardwalk Empire/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one. I have never seen a full episode, but eagerly await the DVDs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

From HBO sounds a little loose. How about either "originally aired on", "produced by" or "produced for" HBO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The double "by" construction of the 2nd sentence is a bit awkward. Convert to active voice. I.E., "Emmy-award...Sopranos" adapted the show...--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to use citations in the LEAD, you must cite "the most expensive pilot episode produced in television history".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph should mention the two awards that are templated at the bottom of the page or at least the GG one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a one-sentence 4th paragraph. Merge it with the 2nd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series overview

This section should either be unsourced and treated as a plot overview section or the majority of the paragraph that is unsourced should be sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters

I am not entirely comfortable with some of the POV adjectives in this unsourced section. However, I know the rules are a bit different for the cast section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

This section should expand on the content from the LEAD about when seasons were picked up. It should also, state how many episodes were in the season. Maybe merge this with the Home Media section, adding detail about the beginning and ending episode dates for each season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

It seems that there are an unnatural number of subsections. I would merge some of these together. Do we need a separate subsection for Scorcese's involvement. Move that into development. Not sure Crew should be its own section either.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Remove redundant linking of Martin Scorsese.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

You should only link Enoch L. Johnson on its first appearance. Additional references should assume the reader remembers previously presented content. Just use his last name after first introduction. Same with the character Thompson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delink redundant Steve Buscemi.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crew

Citations needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delink redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last name only for redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

Citations needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

The American Film Institute named Boardwalk Empire one of the ten "best television programs of the year".-Which season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews for the second season were just as positive. - You did not say the first paragraph was about the first season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link the reader to Boardwalk Empire (season 1) and Boardwalk Empire (season 2) if you are going to present critical review for them separately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the second season runs until December and it is still only October, do we consider the metacritic 2nd season numbers to be final?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

Link to proper Golden Globe category articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link to proper Screen Actors Guild category articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first for "Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Broadcast Program" and second for "Outstanding Models & Miniatures in a Broadcast Program or Commercial". needs verbs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

How did the show rate among cable shows for the season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate one-sentence paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

2/3 - these lines surely have linkable articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the special subway cars have articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link AC Expressway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Not the greatest prose, but adequate.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Many links are redundant (See WP:REPEATLINK). When names appear multiple times, only the last name should appear after the first introduction. Two sections have no inline citations.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Inline citation needed for all facts. Some sections of facts have no citations currently.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Inline citation needed for all facts. Some sections of facts have no citations currently.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	WP:LEAD could use some work.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Scorsese image should have `{{personality}}`. The FUR should include an enumeration of rationales, like the infobox image does. The infobox image should have the FUR template like Scorsese's image does.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	WP:CAPTIONs should include links. Infobox image is uncaptioned.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article can pass with some work. I will check back in 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing this due to lack of response.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]