Talk:A Many Splendored Thing (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 12:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, couple of queries below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to reliable sources, no problems.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The main points are certainly covered, and it remains focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   no problems with neutrality.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems with stability or content disputes.

6. 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):

   Image meets GA standards although I do question its inclusion (see below).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

No links to disambiguation pages, no problems with dead links, no apparent problems with plagiarism or close-paraphrasing. Checked with Coren's bot (still pending - will check before listing) and Earwig's tool and checked the one online reference. Of course, most refs are offline so wouldn't show up with these checks, so WP:AGF on offline sources.

This is very close to being GA standard, if not there already. I just have a couple of queries.

• "As a thank you for solving the murder..." - didn't it turn out not to be a murder? Perhaps "As a thank you for solving the case..."?
• "Lewis later finds Forman at the police station, where he originally planned to turn himself, but instead..." - turn himself in?
• "The title "A Many Splendored Thing" is a reference to..." - is this sentence covered by the next citation that follows? If so, it wouldn't hurt to have it at the end of this sentence too. If not, that needs a reference.

I have to also that I'm not sure about the inclusion of the image. It won't affect the GA listing as the image is appropriately tagged, but I don't think you can really legitimately justify its inclusion under fair use. The fair use rationale claims that "The removal of this image would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader", but I don't think this is true at all. To be honest, the image doesn't tell me anything that isn't already very clear in the text, and it's by no means obvious that the image has anything to do with an S&M lifestyle. Just my opinion, as I say, I won't hold up the GA listing over it, but I think you should consider removing it (or choosing a different image that is supported by critical commentary).

I'll put it on hold to allow you to address the three issues listed above (not including image). --BelovedFreak 12:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed the issues you identified above. Regarding the image, I'll take a look at the episode again (have to get it in the mail again) and see if I can find a better picture. Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 19:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job, I'm happy to list it as a good article. --BelovedFreak 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)