Talk:The Tower (TV series)

The Tower (TV series) 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.
Review: June 13, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Television 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.

Archives

Archive 1.

GA review

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tower (2021 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 00:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Overall: @Serial Number 54129: 7-day hold. There are some comma issues that need fixing, one source I do not think justifies the article text, and the reference citation templates could use date and author information as well as archival. However, these are minor issues that won't take much time or little more than running reFill and the date script on the reference side. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have made the changes to pass this page. I would not normally do so, but the editor has not been on Wikipedia since May 11, the changes were doable, and a blueprint for improvement does nobody any good sitting in a GA review nobody will read if I fail this. I did spot one item worth noting as I was going through the references to add author information. I swapped out the Heart website ref as another section blatantly copied Wikipedia, to the point of leaving in a [1]. I also used a reference invocation to solve my issue with Midgley. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copy changes

Lead

Remove comma before Line of Duty

Kate London

Remove comma after "unsuccessful"

Production

"cellars ... was used" should be fixed

Reception

Remove comma before "Wayne Couzens". Grammar note from me: an appositive should be removable without leaving the reader wanting for more information. "Although the book was published ... by serving Met officer" leaves me wondering who the officer is.
Paul Kendall, for example, in The Telegraph, — consider rewording to use fewer commas.
Remove comma after "vertigo in the viewer"
realism that the similar programs — correct typo (and that should be programmes, British English)
The Tower was a tighter script—less "flabbiness"—than many of its genre — consider adding "with" before "less"
Remove comma after "viewer's interest". Grammar note from me: if you can remove ", and" and split a sentence in two with both halves working, there should be a comma. If you can't, there shouldn't be a comma. "That, generally, the series..." is not a complete sentence because of the "that".

Source spot checks

Ref 2 (Midgley): Not sure if it justifies the "full-time author" label. Is it because Midgley describes London as an author when introducing her?
Ref 9 (Calday, Radio Times): Justifies Karl Davies's roles being mentioned.
Ref 13 (The Guardian review): Has the quote used in the article.
Ref 21 (Radio Times filming): Mentions the mentioned park as a filming location.

Other items

Some references are missing date and author information (e.g. the Radio Times article written by John Calday). Run a date script again as there are some mdy dates hiding in the references when you want dmy dates. This should be fixed as some of these references could use this information.
Archive references using IABot.
Earwig catches the blockquote and some formal titles (Homicide and Serious Crime Command, etc.) but no areas of textual concern.
Images: one fair-use cover in the infobox and five freely licensed images in the multiple image area. They have alt tags.
There's a bit heavier weight on Kate London than normal, probably because she lacks an article, as does the book. It's understandable here as a summary bio of the author is necessary context. This would be a bit much if this were not the case.

Add topic