Talk:Line of Duty series 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 06:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 19:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one's been lying in the queue for ages, wow. I'll try to take this one on in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Only minor mistakes.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-What is the Anti-Corruption unit? It can be inferred from the text but I feel stating outright will make it more clear to those unfamiliar with the series and police terminology. Done

-Was Keeley Hawes's character a main character, recurring character, or a one-off character last season? It's not very clear.

Cast and characters

-Looks good

Episodes

-"Superintendent Ted Hastings agrees to send DC Kate Fleming" Agrees with who? Waldron, or a member of his team? Done

"When Waldron's team raids another drug house Fleming, who was ordered to remain on another floor, hears a gunshot, and rushes upstairs to find Waldron bleeding out." This sentence feels like two meshed together. I'm pretty sure this is meant to say that Waldron's team was ordered to another floor but went to the next one anyway, but the current wording makes it very unclear what series of events is happening. Reword this. Done

-"Fleming, shoots the driver" No need for comma. Done

Production

-Looks good

Release

-Looks good

Reception

-"Reviewing the series premiere for Den of Geek, Louisa Mellor wrote about the depth of Mercurio's writing, noting how Waldron's character was both a dirty cop and a victim." This feels only applicable to the premier rather than the series as a whole. Additionally, its commentary that it's cited for is just a recap of plot info, as this is just a summary of Waldron's character with no elaboration as to how it relates to the depth of writing.

-The bit about the former police detective makes more sense after the reviews, given it is not a review and instead an entirely unrelated incident. Done

-"observing that two of them together used over forty minutes of screentime." Why is this important? How does this relate to the scenes being investing?

-I feel "admired" isn't quite the right word here (Unless this was a word they used directly in the review). Perhaps something like appreciated? Done

-"as a riveting area of the series." In what sense? Done

-"often named "Urgent Exit Required,"" Isn't the name of the episode "Breach"? Why is this alternative name being brought up now? This is just confusing to anyone without knowledge of the alternate name. Either remove it or clarify this somewhere else.

-"while others commended the uncharted territory for a British television series." What kind of uncharted territory? Was the series stepping into it with its coverage? Is it talking about the uncharted territory the characters stepped into?

Overall

-@TheDoctorWho: This is looking good. Most of my points are rather small, but I feel they'll aid with understanding the prose. Ping me when they're done or if you have questions, and I'll get to the spotcheck when everything is addressed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed a number of these. Hawes was a main character in the previous season, do I need to explicitly add that? Compston, McClure, Dunbar, and Parkinson also returned from the previous series', their status in those just didn't seem as relevant to me given this is a separate series.

Reception sections clearly aren't my strong suit, but to answer your questions:

The depth of writing portion was specifically in reference to Waldron being a dirty cop and a victim. While it is plot-ish it wouldn't be plot had Mercurio only written Waldron as one or the other (or neither), and probably wouldn't have been mentioned a mention had Waldron not been both. Sort of backwards compatible if that makes sense? This series was typically reviewed episode by episode rather than overall, which did make writing this a bit difficult, but MOS:TV does say that season articles can go into detail on specific episodes while the overall show page should be more broad.
The forty-minutes seemed relevant because it is unusually excessive for police procedurals. The finale was 82 minutes long, using half of your runtime on interrogations allows for further depth and exploration of the characters and their motives, in a typical show of this genre I'd say interrogation scenes are less than ten minutes each. While the forty-minute length was noted in the review, the part about other shows wasn't listed which is why I didn't elaborate further on that in the article.
"Urgent Exit Required" is just the name of the final scene(s) of the final episode, not the entire episode itself, which is why it isn't mentioned earlier. I'd be happy to add it earlier on, I just wasn't sure of the best place. But I did want to introduce it before the awards table, since that portion of the episode specifically was nominated for a BAFTA.
The "uncharted territory" would be in reference to the major use of firearms in the episode, which is mentioned earlier on in that same sentence. In other words, some critics praised the same part that the other critics thought were unrealistic.

That said, I'd be more than happy to make any further changes to this article that you think need to be made to improve it further, but thought it may help if I answered them first and ask for additional clarification. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho:

1: A reader shouldn't have to perform mental gymnastics to understand what the reviewer is saying and why it's important. I'd clarify (If it's stated in the source) why this is important to the writing of the character and series.

2: Again, a casual reader won't know about this precedent before reading this article. They don't know why this runtime is important without the prior context. Try to clarify why this is important or reword this to be more clear.

3: The scenes have specific names? That seems very specific, and likely not relevant to readers, who will just be confused since the scene names aren't mentioned at all in the article, and this specific case isn't clarified as a scene. I'd just keep it simple and refer to it as the last scene of the episode.

4: Still, clarify this. The prior context doesn't make it clear why using guns is unprecedented territory for this show, nor does it clarify why it being unprecedented is important.

My main concern is that the context needed isn't being provided, as casual readers won't know about most of this. I understand your rationale, but I do feel it should be clarified just in case a reader isn't familiar with the above points. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional clarification, I absolutely agree with what you've said, I just wasn't quite sure what you were looking for at first. I'll try to wrap up these last few things over the next three or four days. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho Best of luck with your edits, and feel free to take as much time as you need to do them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to reword and elaborate further on the things you mentioned. Can you give that section another read-through whenever you get a chance and let me know if anything else needs changed? TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]