Talk:Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 28, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
July 4, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Television / Law & Order / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Law & Order task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Plot[edit]

I've rewritten the plot to be less wordy. i don't think it's a good idea to name drop everyone. Cutter was there, for instance, but I think we shouldn't mention him unless we mention the sub-plot that he wanted to drop the case after the tape surfaced while Cabot insisted that it go forward. Likewise, the name of the defense lawyer is not important to the plot. I've also condensed the Elliot subplot to just two sentences and gave some background. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviews - to include or not to include[edit]

Currently, the reception section of this article only mentions the ratings from the episode's original broadcast. I'd like to add some reviews, as well, so I found this or this from a very lucky Google search. Would either of these sites be reliable enough to cite in the article? A little expansion of the section wouldn't hurt--but at the same time, I wouldn't want to use one of these articles if they turn out to be no better than the typical blog that one would find on blogspot or whatever. --Davejohnsan (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times review definitely, the NoWhiteNoise.com one, I'm not so sure about. —Mike Allen 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've added in the NY Times review; please feel free to make any changes. I think one more review would be ideal for the article, but other than that, I think it's just about ready for GA. --Davejohnsan (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Would this be okay? --Davejohnsan (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
TVFanatic.com is part of SheKnows Entertainment which is a division of AtomicOnline (which operates a site that Wikipedia regardes as a reliable source -- CraveOnline). I don't see why not. —Mike Allen 03:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, please let me know what you think. --Davejohnsan (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. —Mike Allen 05:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! I'll see what other improvements I can make before I nominate it for GA status. --Davejohnsan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scorched Earth (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    • "which confirms that his DNA is a match" - not clear what it is a match to - won't his DNA be found in his hotel room anyway?
    • "new show runner" - what is a show runner?
    • "the case was shaken" - could you reword this? - not encyclopedic wording.
    • "candidacy was derailed. " - to close to source - I added "presidential" - but find another word than "derailed"
    • "but what it really lacked was the back-and-forth between Benson and Stabler." - what does this mean? - the source explains a little more and this would explain some of the dynamics normally in the show.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • Should mention in lede the real world events, as these received a great deal of publicity and the plot of the show is largely driven by it.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    • "thought that the mixed verdict was disappointing" - this seems to misrepresent the NYTimes review which said "It was disappointing in dramatic terms but understandable, when the result was a mixed verdict."
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    • article could have said more about the representation of a rape case in prime time TV, as discussed in sources
    • Could explain more about the dynamics between characters in show (see above)
    • Also, there is some discussion in the sources about whether this show is becoming "stale" and what the introduction of new characters are aiming to accomplish.
    B. Remains focused:
    • Det. Nick Amaro (absent) - why is he mentioned in the Cast if he isn't in the episode?
    • "Neal Baer, who departed after getting a three-year deal at CBS and went on to serve as an executive producer on the Susannah Grant created CBS medical drama, A Gifted Man." - isn't this a little off topic?
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    No images
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • The article is off to a good start. It just needs some filling in and clarification. I have made some edits[1] but you are free to revert. Please feel free to contact me with questions or feedback. Meanwhile, I'll put it on hold. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Reevaluation after fixes
1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass