Talk:Monique Jeffries

Monique Jeffries 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 31, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Michelle Hurd, who played Detective Monique Jeffries on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, was frustrated by the lack of material for her character and departed from the show?

Television: Law & Order 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Law & Order task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monique Jeffries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Wait, Jerry Orbach's son plays Jerry Orbach's character's nephew? I love it.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is generally good but there's a few stylistic things I'd suggest.
For one; in the infobox you have 1999–2001 as a year range but the next field uses "1, 2" to list seasons. As they're consecutive, I'd suggest using "1–2" as a range to keep things looking more consistent.
When you mention that she is "replaced" by Ice-T, is it just her place in the cast or does the new character pair up with her old partner as well? Just if it's the former, then use a real-world perspective when mentioning the replacement, if the latter then phrase it to imply it's in-universe.
"but later feels exhilarated over having survived the incident and starts feeling overconfident" -> "feel" is used here twice. Perhaps "and starts acting overly confident".
"the Showtime drama television series Leap Years" -> ditch "television" here, it's pretty redundant here and the phrase is already a little clunky.
"Roger Friedman, an entertainment journalist, of Fox News" -> "Roger Friedman, an entertainment journalist for Fox News" or "entertainment journalist Roger Friedman, of Fox News".
"had untapped potential that appeared ready to be tapped" -> The use of "tapped" here twice should be fixed unless this is a quote, in which case leave the wording and quote it.
The prose has been fixed =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose fixes look good. I'll pass this one once the deal with ref 3 is sorted out (I'd do it myself but there's two different episodes cited to source that storyline and as I don't watch the show I don't know which one is more appropriate, or if both are relevant). GRAPPLE X 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I also made a tweak regarding your feedback on the "replaced" wording with the Ice-T character. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is grand.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Ref 3 is used only in the lead, and seems to be backing up information which is cited to other refs later. Move the ref down to the plot section and incorporate it there.
Is it broad in its coverage?
I actually just removed Ref 3 altogether. It was only citing info that was already cited in the body of the text itself by non-episode sources, so I don't think it was necessary in the article at all. Let me know if you disagree. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I just didn't know what actually happened in the individual episodes cited so I wasn't sure whether keeping one, the other, or both was best. GRAPPLE X 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Generally seems okay. Anything else that could be added to the "Reception" header wouldn't go amiss though.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Fine.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Grand.
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:
Rationale for the image seems okay; bit light but it covers what it needs to. There probably are suitable free images to add in addition but unless you could expand the "Reception" section further I can't see there being any need for one.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just a few prose niggles to see to here, really. Shouldn't take long to get sorted. GRAPPLE X 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All good to go now, passing. GRAPPLE X 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable source

Can anyone see the source for this? " Roger Friedman, a freelance entertainment gossip blogger for Fox News, wrote that Richard Belzer arranged for Hurd to be fired because her character was receiving too many story-lines and distracting attention from him, but that report was never confirmed.[13]" At the time, Friedman's blog wasn't an RS, as he had been let go, and it was just a self published, zero editorial oversight, blog. And this has blp implications. Is it even germane? I would vote for deleting it, but am interested in hearing others' views. --2603:7000:2143:8500:94D2:447:CF44:F53 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]