Talk:Law & Order: Criminal Intent season 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Started review. Was actually started some time ago, via IRC discussions  Chzz  ►  08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has good sources, seems neutral, has no banners, no edit warring and not a current event. It therefore passes the 'Quick fail' criteria. Full review beginning

Several issues were resolved via discussion on IRC;

• The lede did not start with a clear explanation of the subject
• DABS - in 'distribution' EST and 'Hiatus'

• note re hiatus: Hiatus doesn't have a relevant article, but as it's an important TV-term, I've left it in Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Grammar, punctuation and spelling

• Should be all done now. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• primetime should be "prime time"? US English

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• The russian ref, language, should link to 'Russian language' (or whatever the article is); same goes for French

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Lede "Four actors received star billing in the first season" - is this covered in the main article?

• yes. Cast section Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Ongoing fixes

• There were excess links
• Too much repetition of "Law and Order:Criminal Intent"

• Changed some instances to "The series" or "The season", as I hate to see "L&O:CI" or just "Criminal Intent" Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Queries that were answered

• Should there be a summary of the summaries - ie a plotline?

• "Not applicable, as each episode is self contained; no story arc over the season; no real in-depth details into the detectives' lives or their working relationship"

• In 'smothered', could 'sociopath' be linked to the more relevent of the articles that that lists?

• "Not sure which one of Sociopath they meant. I don't remember the character being so specific" Matthewedwards :  Chat 

Redirects

• In 'smothered', could 'sociopath' be linked to the more relevent of the articles that that lists?

• See above. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In 'poison', 27th precinct redirects to Law & Order; this is prob wrong? to Law & Order - no specific section - hence it doesn't explain what 27th Precinct *is*

• 27th Precinct is the fictional precinct of the Law & Order detectives, but as there is no section I've removed it. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In 'pardoner's tale', governor's office is redir to the 'real' List of Governors of New York - prob wrong?

• Removed. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In ref 14, Tribune News Service is redir to the company - probably should be one of the subsidiaries; maybe they changed name or someth?

• ref 14 uses |agency=Knight Ridder |publisher=Tribune News Service in {{cite news}} template; Changed to Tribune Publishing Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Lede para 3 "utilised" US Eng should be "utilized" ?

• Em-en changes done. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Multiple wikilinks are permitted in different sections, but please check if they are appropriate: Amazon Video on Demand Casting Society of America [[confession Constantine Makris Courtney B. Vance crime drama Dick Wolf Entertainment Weekly Faith Five Geoffrey Neigher Hallmark Channel iTunes Store James Deakins Jamey Sheridan Jones Kathryn Erbe Law & Order franchise Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Manhattan Marlane Gomard Meyer murder NBC Network Ten New York City Police Department One One Police Plaza organized crime Oz police procedural local color René Balcer Robert Goren Ron Carver Smothered Studios USA network TF1 The Faithful The Hollywood Reporter Theresa Rebeck trial Tuxedo Hill TV Guide TV3 TVShowsOnDVD.com Universal Studios Home Entertainment Variety Vincent D'Onofrio

I've gone through the links. Most are either used in the Lede then again once somewhere in the main prose or are used in references as publishers or something. Cast and crew names are mentioned in the Lede and again in the cast section. Publication titles are mentioned in the reception section and again in references. Some legal/police terms are also used in the Lede and production sections. I think they're all relevant to either TV or crime drama so they're better left in. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• File:Criminal Intent cast.jpg|thumb|250px -does the size really need to be specified?

• Yes, it needs specifying, the image is tiny as a thumb Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Ref 6 - publication date?

• None available Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• ref 11 has pub date, but it is in a different place to the others; it's toward the end of the ref, rather than in brackets at the start

• because there's no author given, the {{cite news}} template puts the date elsewhere

• ref 17; http://www.webcitation.org/5f4Cya5tg failed URL

• changed to NBC original site Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Book references preferably should include city of publication (not essential) - easy enough to add?
• In the 'cast' pic, I think that there is no point in re-linking the names, as they're linked in the text alongside. What do you think?
• on that specific pic - "An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. (GA criteria)"

Grammar

• last sentence in Lede; "can be viewed in syndication in the US" - seems clumsy... could it be ""has been syndicated in the US" or something?
• "A DVD of the season was released" - not one DVD; a boxset? or something?
• same bit "and episodes are also available to purchase" - "also" is redundant
• production, "is the third series in the crime drama Law & Order franchise" should that be "is the third series in the Law & Order crime drama franchise" ?
• 1st part of 'production' is hard work to read; I'll try and come back to that later. Too many repeats of the names...might be possible to combine some phrases. Anyway - can do that later.
• "Episodes do not usually contain trials" - is it possible to quantify that? 'usually' is a bit vague
• "and often end in confessions"

• refs 26 to 30 - I think it would be appropriate to use the 'air date' they give as the publication date - what do you think?

• technically wrong. The page was probably there a couple of days before the broadcast so fans could find out about the forthcoming show

 Chzz  ►  20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Final review

I have now checked over the article several times; I have made quite a lot of edits to hopefully improve things, and I have had help from several other people.

Checking over the criteria;

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

Yes - I believe that it is now up to GA standards; it is difficult and challenging to write good, neutral prose concerning a television series, and improvements could be made (see later) - but I have checked the spelling and grammar, and made corrections.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

The sections are logical and laid out correctly; jargon issues have been addressed; it covers the fictional topic with neutral and encyclopasedic language.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Yes - the references check out, they appear to be reliable sources, and their formatting is consistent.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

There is no contentious material, and all facts are referenced in-line

(c) it contains no original research.

Everything appears verifiable

3. 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).

There is considerable details, and possibly a little too much on the details of the series as a whole - but I feel that this can be addressed as the other articles in the subject area are developed. The main topics are covered well.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Yes

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No evidence of any edit-warring

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

(a)images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

Yes

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes

I can therefore now pass this as a Good Article. Notes on future development will follow.  Chzz  ►  10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for further improvement

In passing this as a good article, I have made the following notes, comments and suggestions for further improvement;

• Overlinking

I still feel that there are too many wikilinks in the article, and some that do not really add information that is relevent. I realise that this is a matter of taste, but I feel that it would become an issue in an FA review. For example, in "Distribution", ...premiered during the 2001–2002 television season on the American terrestrial television network NBC. The pilot episode, titled "One", aired on Sunday September 30, 2001 at 9:00 p.m. EST. Episodes aired weekly until December, when the show took a brief hiatus until January... In the above, I am not sure that it is necessary to link "terrestrial television", "NBC", "pilot episode", "EST" and "hiatus". In reviewing, I have removed some wikilinks, but I feel that others could go without detracting from the article content.

• Grammar and prose

• Lede, "an American police procedural television series developed by Dick Wolf and René Balcer, began airing on September 30, 2001 on NBC, a national broadcast television network."

Needs clarification re. "national" - ie that it is an American national broadcast network - I can't think of the best way to do this and avoid repeating "American".

 Done with "a national broadcast television network in the United States". Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The season was nominated for four awards, and was described as the most impressive" - the "described" part needs a cited mention in the body text.

 Done "In Entertainment Weekly, Ken Tucker wrote that Law & Order: Criminal Intent was the best series of the year from the Law & Order franchise" Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lede, general comment - The production section overlaps a lot with the lede; it's almost like a second lede with citations, and the intro is a little detailed. Keeping in mind that this article is just for season 1, we might want to consider making the first two paragraphs of Production into the introduction, and then leave the third paragraph which is season 1 production information. Maybe retain the last paragraph of the current introduction as well, since it's season specific.

In other words, as this article is only for season 1, it does include a lot of material about the show in general.

 Done I think. I reduced and merged the second and third paragraphs of the Lede Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Multi references for one fact - there are several places where 2 or even 3 references are used to verify one sentence, and this may not be necessary.

I don't really think this is a problem. More sources=a more reliable article Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cast - "Law & Order: Criminal Intent does not have an ensemble cast,[14] and therefore differs from Law & Order and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit which, at the time this season premiered, featured six and eight actors receiving star billing respectively." - could this be rewritten more clearly?

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "a hyper-intuitive contemporary Sherlock Holmes-type investigator" - Doesn't sound very neutral, and I can't find a specific ref in the source (which, being NBC, may be primary anyway) - could this be made more neutral whilst still giving the information?

I've tried playing but can't think of any other way to word it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Balcer, ironically, has stated Eames was cast because "she just looked like a real cop."" - Can we remove 'ironically' - sounds a bit like a matter of opinion; again, I appreciate that the ref probably says that, but it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Plot summaries - some non-encyclopaedic language needs improving - e.g. "The detectives dig deeper, " and "The detectives take heat from Captain Deakins"

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The Good Doctor" - I don't quite understand this sentence, and I think it needs a rewrite; "Weeks later, when the body parts from a decomposed woman wash ashore, the detectives set a trap and have a story placed in the papers claiming they are from the missing woman to see how her husband reacts, in an attempt to turn his strong ego against him and discover the truth"

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 10 - "When DNA from Kit and Edward are found in Harold's bed, the detectives suspect Harold was using them as evidence to divorce Kit, but Kit and Edward deny sleeping with each other; Edward is gay. Suspicion falls on Zainer, who admits to sleeping with Edward and turning the three family members against each other, as revenge for Harold failing to deliver on a promise to write letters of recommendation for Zainer's sons to enter an elite private school. " - this needs rewriting, I must admit I gave up on this one!

Not sure what's wrong with this. His wife and son's DNA are found in the bed, which was planted by Zanier when he slept with Edward. He slept with Edward to get Edward's DNA into the bed, so he could turn the old man, his wife and his son against each other, as revenge for the old man not delivering on a promise. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• ep 14 "He denies that anything is wrong to his mother-in-law, but she goes to the Major Case Squad with her suspicions that the family was kidnapped for ransom. " - clumsy grammar

 Done

• ep 20 "investigating the illegal public employee practice of double-dipping, shaking down drug dealers, or getting paid two salaries at once" - what is double-dipping?

double dip Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've addressed most things. Hopefully it will be FAC-ready very soon. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

challenge-

I don't usually participate in these reviews , so I do not know the format, but I challenge this as even a GA because of the inadequacy of the summaries, which has also been noticed above by matthewedwards . Many of them hang in midair and are more like teasers. Some of the episodes may indeed end up without a resolution, but this should be indicated. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DVD release date is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.110.49 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Smothered case

Episode 3, Smothered, is listed in the beginning as being inspired by actual events. Does anyone have an event they can correspond to it? --JY23 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)