Talk:True Detective/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am starting a GA Review for this article. It is truly *massive* so please be patient with me as I work my way through all the various sections and parameters. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be going through the various sections in order and then filling out the GA Criteria towards the end of my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   Clear, easy to read, sticks to the verifiable facts. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   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:

   Reference #34 is from Chicago Trubune and should probably be web-archived. Please check Reference #59 - looks like the server might be down?Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

   I see that Ref #34 has a web-archive link anyway & #59 seems to be working now - never mind. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Yes. I fixed those sources. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - all looks good to go. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Looks good so far but want to read bit more to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable content. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Hard to get images from media productions that are held so tightly by their corporate owners - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @AffeL: Doing one more readthrough to see if I missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA. Going forward, to me possible future improvements would include finding CC-BY-SA or PD images for the article - of the actors, any locales that were used, etc. I do understand how difficult it is getting images for a show that is under copyright etc, but anyway....if possible, more images would be my wish for the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Looks fine - lays out who has starred in the series, its creator/writing/production team, the network, the general timeline of its development - and so gives the notability claims - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Production

Good research, timeline is well-developed (no big gaps - yay), prose & grammar are correct. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast & crew

Looks good. Well-written, good research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Episodes

Both Season 1 and Season 2: good writing, research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response, Accolades, Ratings
The only problem I see in this general section is the Ratings sub-section is completely unsourced. This section will have to be referenced before I can finish up the Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The ratings sub section is now sourced and archived. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why I thought that Ratings was unsourced - in the course of my Review maybe I was looking at an old/outdated version?...sheesh, I have no idea. Anyway, it's good to go now. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you where right. The ratings sub-section was unsourced. I just sourced and archived it couple of hours ago. - AffeL (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok... it's just that when I look at the edit history it's showing your last edit as being on Feb 25th. Maybe something to do with the page cache? Anyway, it's fixed - yay! Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ratings section (and its edit history) is actually located at {{True Detective ratings}}. – Rhain ☔ 06:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more readthroughs

I will give this article a few more deep reads to see what I might have missed previously. The major issue at this point is the unreferenced "Ratings" subsection. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)