Talk:A Shot in the Dark (Homicide: Life on the Street)

A Shot in the Dark (Homicide: Life on the Street) 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.

A Shot in the Dark (Homicide: Life on the Street) is part of the Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 18, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
April 20, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 20, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Homicide: Life on the Street episode "A Shot in the Dark" erroneously refers to Detective Pembleton's kids, even though he does not have children until the later in the series?

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage 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.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Shot in the Dark (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no Reception section, which I think is a major flaw. Xtzou (Talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The problem is I haven't been able to find any sources related to the Nielsen ratings or critical reviews for this particular episode. Since the article is still strong in the production aspects, I thought it could still meet GA standards as long as I wasn't actively neglecting any sources that talked about Reception. However, I will probably have access to some better news databases starting tomorrow and will take a closer look to see if I can dig anything up that I might have missed. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Humm. Really? There is nothing? That seems strange, considering the other episodes seem to be well documented. It is a huge omission, but ... if there is nothing nowhere ... Xtzou (Talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will take your word for it, since you apparently have the DVD etc. Otherwise, it is a fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance: }
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused: }
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 22:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]