Talk:Hill Street Station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Last episode of this season to need reviewed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Wikilink first season
linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for references in the lead. Move [1] to a section called "Reception" (more on that later) and [2] and [3] to production.
O.K. I moved a lot of text with the refs. Not sure if LEAD is full enough.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He is compared to the title character in Barney Miller,…" Who is the person comparing him to the title character?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"…and the show is compared to Barney Miller and Kojak." Again, who is doing the comparing?
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I feel that the cast section should be merged into prose and added to the production section. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, per say, but I think it looks rather clunky.

I would make "Background" into a sub-header of "Plot"
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Critical Review" and "Accolades" sections should be made into sub-headers for a larger section called "Reception".
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
You mention that the episode won/was nominated for several awards, but the second part of the paragraph is entirely unsourced.
The only source that I have for many of these awards is IMDB.com, which is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references out there that give ratings info?
I don't know how to find ratings content for average shows. Top rated shows seem to pop up in Google News. I am of the impression that the ratings were pedestrian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There's some issues with the article, but I believe it can be fixed up. I will place this on hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made some minor changes. I hide the bottom part of the accolades section. It really needs a reference, but I didn't delete it, just used wiki formatting to hide it up until a cite presents itself. Also, I expanded the lead. It was fine the way it was, it just didn't need the references. Other than that, it looks good. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]