Talk:Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1

Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1 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.
Review: November 16, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series, season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll will be giving your article an assessment based on the GA-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

The lead seems perfect all the way until the last sentence. I suggest adding the year after "September 27."
Cast section passes per MOS:TVCAST. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First season articles usually don't have a "No. in season" column, as it's the same as the column before it titled "No. overall." To fix this, I suggest editing the episode table and removing both "|overall=" and "|EpisodeNumber2 =". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive all archivable sources. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding more suggestions later on. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added the year after September 27, and archived and all available sources. In my experience first season articles always have both numbers. Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 1), MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1) are both good articles I have worked with promoting that have them (other examples: Superstore (season 1), Pretty Little Liars (season 1), Grey's Anatomy (season 1), Stranger Things (season 1) I could go on). The only time the first season doesn't have both numbers in my experience is where the first season is the only season (Me, Myself & I (TV series), Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists) or until a second season table can be added (Lego Masters (American TV series)). TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for letting me know. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episode description lengths are good enough and pass MOS:TVPLOT. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference [72] (from TVLine) is archivable. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reference that follows "Both Amy Hill and Kang debuted in the seasons third episode" in the casting section should be replaced with a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the reception section, "Deadline Hollywood" and "USA Today" should be in italics. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator website" to something similar to "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes," so its easier for people to read and understand. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 02:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been taken care of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In development, I suggest changing "a Category 4 hurricane, in Hawaii CBS" to "a Category 4 hurricane in Hawaii, CBS". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the hurricane information in the development section affected filming, I would move it all to "filming". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In casting "Deadline Hollywood" should be in italics. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To improve consistency in the "release and marketing" section, I suggest changing "EST" to "ET". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also in that section, I would change "airing on 20 episodes" to "airing for 20 episodes" or "airing 20 episodes". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding the season's Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus and Metacritic's "Season 1 Overview". Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done! TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only have three more suggestions and this article should be good to go. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:CAPS, change references [68] and [78] so they're not in all caps.
In the reception section, "Magnum P.I." should be in italics.
I know this isn't common in most articles, but to be consistent, I suggest changing the section title "Release and marketing" to "Marketing and release".

Done, done, and done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA overall assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·