Jump to content

Talk:On Patrol: Live

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albuquerque Journal Editorial

[edit]

Should criticism like the one in this piece by the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board be included in the critical response section? It's not exactly a traditional television review. – Recoil (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be useful. As suggested at WP:RS we just need to make sure its attributed to the author. Would fit in nicely with the first paragraph of the section (first paragraph discusses criticisms, second discusses strengths, so we have a neutral POV). TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content also further compliments what Horton said well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to write a paragraph, if you could look over it that would be appreciated. – Recoil (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding it! I'll read over it in the next day or two when I get a chance . TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:On Patrol: Live/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    see #Spotchecks below
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    see #Spotchecks below
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The episode lists are rather long and dominate the article. Is there any way to spin them out or collapse them?
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A rather good article. Just a question regarding criterion 3b), and this should be ready to go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! I've thought the same thing about the list of episodes. I just haven't split it yet because MOS:TVSPLIT says it should be around 50-60kb (or 50-60 episodes with summaries) before splitting. The current readable prose size however, is only at 12kb, and since there are no episode summaries its safe to assume that is pretty accurate. If you think it still needs split, I'd be more than happy to! Just thought I'd ask first. Thank you, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

[edit]
  • 7 fine
  • 19 fine
  • 33 AGF
  • 72 url dead, but good

Spotchecks done on statistics as well.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by TheDoctorWho (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/On Patrol: Live; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - The Reuters source does not appear to contain the quote "blatant rip-off"
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm happy to approve this if the quote could be cited. From a quick google, there are plenty of sources that do quote A&E saying this, so it should be an easy fix. Sammielh (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammielh: Alright, i've cited it with citation 49. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Looks great, approved. Sammielh (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Using a critical piece about Live PD in the "Critical Response" section of this article

[edit]

I can't believe I even have to point this out. I removed a piece that was highly critical of Live PD - not On Patrol Live (!) - because it's written about Live PD. Beyond that, the section is titled "Critical response" and the piece was written before one episode of On Patrol Live ever aired. How can it be included in a section titled "critical response" when the show hadn't even aired?!?!? Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the series, from before its inception. The entirety of the background section includes information from before the first episode eve aired. This information can expand to the critical response section. The source in question discusses the logistics of a Live PD revival, which is what this article is about. The source was released on June 9, 2022, one day AFTER the revival was officially announced on June 8, 2022. This means the source is most definitely in response to the concept of a Live PD revival and falls within the scope of this article.
On a side note, I'm not sure why you have so much trouble following the simple instructions of WP:BRD. And I've reverted your dispute edits again until a consensus is reached here. Please do not revert again to your preferred version until we have reached a consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not "about" Live PD--it's about "the revival of Live PD". I don't really understand why you have a problem with that, Andrew Englehart. User:TheDoctorWho, given that this is a GA and we can be picky, you might could add that the article was published before the show started airing or something like that. No, Andrew Englehart, it may be a devastating critique, but it's fair to put that in here. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that, and I worked that into the paragraph. I'm always for compromises and collective writing, I just disagreed with the sources removal in its entirety. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I understand. I read the article and fully support its inclusion here. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, the critique is entirely about Live PD. How on earth could the critique be about the "revival of Live PD" (that alone is an unsourced statement, but that's another story) when the article was published before On Patrol ever aired? How can it be critical "reception" when someone wrote a story before the show that the article is about ever aired? I'm not saying you can't put this somewhere else - maybe start a new section that deals with background and criticism of cop reality shows in general. But that piece, and especially the quote that is used, is absolutely not about the subject of this article. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with what you are saying. It is not a response and the source (The Guardian) is infamous for writing one-sided articles when police are involved. I would be fine if it were an actual review of On Patrol: Live, but it is not - therefore the section and the source should be removed. Including a source that is not about the topic at hand is not compromise. It is bias. Mpkossen (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a response to the creation of the series. Once again, the title reads The revival of Live PD, this is the revival of Live PD. There aren't multiple revivals. The article as a whole covers the time period from what led to Live PD's cancellation up to present day, and anything related to said revival falls within the purview of this article, including that source. The WP:RSP mentions The Guardian and says "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." If you follow that link to RSOPINION, it takes you to Wikipedia's guidelines which states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." So not only does this source fall within the scope of the article, but it follows Wikipedia consensus on what is considered a reliable source and guidelines on how to handle opinion pieces. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian as a source has been "stale". It's been five years since it's been discussed and The Guardian has taken a considerable swing to the left since. But even if it were to be considered biased, that still doesn't take away from the fact that it's not a critical reception. It's a response to a show that was revived. Those are two different things. The former would be akin to making statements about a politician's campaign. The latter would be commenting on their candidacy before their positions are even known. It's judging a book by it's cover. And it adds no value to the article, because it's not substantive.
If you were to write an article about concerns about policing shows, it may have a place there.
What I keep wondering, is why you seem set on including a clearly biased opinion piece that isn't even a response to the show? How does it improve the article? What information does it add? Mpkossen (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the Guardian is stale because of it's possible bias since the last discussion, then that's issue you need to take up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Even if it wasn't found to be reliable as a source of news in it's current state, it's possible that it would still pass WP:RSOPINION. MOS:TVRECEPTION reads "The reception information should include details such as critical reviews and analysis, audience viewership (ratings), any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact." The argument could easily be made that this source is an analysis of the series influence on a cultural level, an opinion of which could easily be formed before anything ever aired, especially when it's in the form of a revival. Live PD was partially cancelled because of its lack of it's transparency, and in the development section we talk about it's supposed increase in transparency. This Guardian source discusses that quote from Abrams critically, and I included a sentence in this article. That's just one way it improves the article.
I'm curious as to why you have yet to attempt to contribute constructively to this, and your only solution is to remove it. I understand that it is sometimes necessary, but that is not the case here. I have attempted to reach compromises by mentioning that it was a pre-broadcast response, and reached a partial compromise with Andrew by removing the quote that was previously included. I have attempted to reach a common consensus in the middle, yet you haven't. I am beginning to think that this discussion is reaching a stalemate and potentially needs a wider discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_Patrol:_Live&oldid=1206498990"