Talk:True Detective season 1/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently closed an unsuccessful DYK submission on this article. One of the issues that arose was that this page uses information taken from other articles. While it is permissible to copy within Wikipedia, there does not seem to be any visible attribution to any previous authors. Failure to attribute remains a violation of both its GFDL and CC BY-SA license. In all likelihood, this is unintentional but I would appreciate it if those working on this GA nomination would take the time to remedy this. Fuebaey (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for pointing this out! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fuebaey:, although this page's content was largely copied from the main True Detective article, most of it is my own work from an expansion I did to the article in late January/early February of this year. I am currently working with a group of editors to trim the main article, so if you are still concerned with the prose, hopefully they will be addressed as we tighten it up. :) —DAP388 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The following things need to be sorted out:

As you said, this article was kind of outsourced from the series article. That is OK, but at this time, a lot of prose (and the very same one!) is in both articles, which I don't think is quite right. I believe you should make a decision wether the creation of the entire series should be in the series or the season article. I would recommend keeping most of it in the series article and just have an overview in the season one. If you keep prose from the original article in the season article, you should use {{histmerge}} to take care of the copyright issues (even if you have written most of it yourself).

Done

Lead: You don't need the references in the lead, since you give this information later on in the article.

Done

Conception: What is Anonymous Content? That needs explanation.

Done

Casting and Crew: At the beginning, you suddenly use the christian name for one of the roles, while everywhere else, you use the family names.

Done

Reviews: I believe that kudos is too colloquial.

Done

Accolades: Is there any particular order in which the Awards are listed? If not, I would move the more prestigious ones to the front (Emmys, Golden Globes).

Done

Viewership: You should note that you speak about US viewership only.

Done

Well, issue #1 is certainly the most pressing one. You might also want to take another look at the Themes and influences of the series article. That covers pretty much only season 1. Maybe take it out there and have it just in the Season 1 article?

The nominator has the usual seven days to adress the issues at hand. Good work so far. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the issues have been addressed @Zwerg Nase:. Shout out to @Drovethrughosts: for tackling a lot of these concerns early on. :) — DAP388 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DAP388: Thank you for your edits! Most is taken care of now. I have however put the histmerge-template on the page. I will wait until an administrator responds to this and then I can grant GA. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's not necessary. Pass then :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.