Jump to content

Talk:Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    • "which confirms that his DNA is a match" - not clear what it is a match to - won't his DNA be found in his hotel room anyway?
    • "new show runner" - what is a show runner?
    • "the case was shaken" - could you reword this? - not encyclopedic wording.
    • "candidacy was derailed. " - to close to source - I added "presidential" - but find another word than "derailed"
    • "but what it really lacked was the back-and-forth between Benson and Stabler." - what does this mean? - the source explains a little more and this would explain some of the dynamics normally in the show.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • Should mention in lede the real world events, as these received a great deal of publicity and the plot of the show is largely driven by it.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    • "thought that the mixed verdict was disappointing" - this seems to misrepresent the NYTimes review which said "It was disappointing in dramatic terms but understandable, when the result was a mixed verdict."
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    • article could have said more about the representation of a rape case in prime time TV, as discussed in sources
    • Could explain more about the dynamics between characters in show (see above)
    • Also, there is some discussion in the sources about whether this show is becoming "stale" and what the introduction of new characters are aiming to accomplish.
    B. Remains focused:
    • Det. Nick Amaro (absent) - why is he mentioned in the Cast if he isn't in the episode?
    • "Neal Baer, who departed after getting a three-year deal at CBS and went on to serve as an executive producer on the Susannah Grant created CBS medical drama, A Gifted Man." - isn't this a little off topic?
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    No images
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • The article is off to a good start. It just needs some filling in and clarification. I have made some edits[1] but you are free to revert. Please feel free to contact me with questions or feedback. Meanwhile, I'll put it on hold. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reevaluation after fixes
1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass