Talk:Hunting Party (Body of Proof)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to review both the Body of Proof articles currently nominated. I haven't seen an episode of Body of Proof, so I'll have to consider this against the benchmark of other TV show articles I've previous reviewed. :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Images: The infobox image meets the fair use requirements because it the topic of critical commentry.

Lead: If you note with the GA episodes of shows such as The Office (and even a couple of the Star Trek ones I've done recently), there is a brief line in the lead prior to the subject of the episode to give an overall explanation of the show. For example the ST:TNG one reads something along the lines of "Set in the 24th century, the show follows the adventures of the crew of the USS Enterprise-D". It would be good to have that sort of line added to the lead at the start of the second paragraph.  Done

Plot: If you've linked the actor/actresses in the lead then you don't need to repeat that in the plot section. Usually the first apperance is just fine.

Im going to keep this, as I believe the lead to be seperate from the subsections? — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought this might have been covered in the MOS, but having just checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, it isn't mentioned. Based on that I'll take that its down to the formatting by the author, in which case I don't have a problem with it staying. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Having not seen the episode, I might have some daft questions about the plot, but I'll ask them anyway! :) First one - do we know who the victim is immediatly or are the team investigating a corpse which is later identified?

The victim is identified straight away? :) — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"phoned the mayor, making a complaint" - the past/present tense gets switched in the same sentence. Something like "phoned the mayor and made a complaint" would be fine. You'll need to reword the end of the sentence as thats also in present tense rather than past.  Done

Heres something I rarely say - you don't need the reference in the plot section. The MOS for plot sections states that the episode itself acts as the reference and you don't need to provide inline citations. So you can actually remove the citation from the end of the final paragraph (which indicates the episode anyway). - Kept, I like to be extra careful ;)  Done

Ok, the MOS doesn't say that they shouldn't be there, only that they're not needed. Based on that, keep it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Production: You don't need to include the (Bishop) bit - you'll have already linked the role and actor in a previous section (either lead or plot). - Going to keep, told to in FA reviews? Apologies :) — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The final paragraph is about the home release. Tht taends to usually be contained in a home release subsection under reception.

- Section would be too small, so going to keep the same. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The MOS does have it down in a separate section (in fact it has it in a completely separate section, but I've seen it on a few occasions as a subsection of reception. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any alternative sourcing avaliable for the guest stars? Or even just to add a source to say that Kames is best known for The Shield? -  Done Removed "best" to avoid sounding like a opinion, and have re-worded. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notes: Best to add the Radio Times and the episode reference to the end of the Nordling note as inline citations.

Reception: It might be worthwhile moving the Radio Times quote from the ratings section to the critical response section as it is a critical response. Is there anything else from the review that would be worthwhile adding to the section (outside of the quote box I mean)? - Umm, the actual review is rather small. And if it is moved, the box would not fit in the section leaving a rather large white space. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

References: I'm going to ask that annoying question that I always hate to get when I've nominated a potential GA - what makes tvshowsondvd a reliable source (not saying that it isn't, just that its something we need to cover in the review and also a response here will validate it for future use)? - I used it because it was used across American TV shows, so I was like; Oh okay! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, just wanted to throw the question out there for the sake of completeness. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be it. Its not far off a GA as the prose is pretty solid apart from that one line, and everything else just requires tweaks. I'll stick the review on my watchlist and when I see you've responded I'll come back and take a look. I'll place the nomination on hold for now. Miyagawa (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd drop by and say this. The episode didn't come in 7th in the ratings, it was ranked third in its timeslot. Rankings are based on the half hour slots.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't picked up on that, while it'd be fine to state the overall position of the evening, it would be better to state the placement in the timeslot first. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Thanks for letting me know! I will add that to the articles! — M.Mario (T/C) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Left note on talk page. Will close in seven days if I haven't heard back from the nom. Miyagawa (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The timeslot rating had been added to the two articles. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, happy to pass this now for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)