Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second on my "to review" list. Probably get to it tomorrow. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:17, 16 July 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The lead is a bit messy. Make sure it follows the structure of the article. Particularly, there's not really much about reception and nothing about production encapsulated in the lead. You sort of do a little bit of statistics followed by cast and plot and then accolades and then just a sentence about renewal.
Specific things in the lead—the commas in the first sentence between genres are weird, and "ripped from the headlines" is either informal or an unattributed quote.
The Green and Dawn source is a bit troubling for me. If it's in the forward written by the series creator, that's definitely a reliable source. But much of it, attributed to pages in the 100s or 200s, cannot be in the forward. And if it were talking about interpretation, that's one thing. But why are these Green and Dawn people reliable for statements of fact?
continued to "haunt" Wolf is informal
You don't need "reflecting the sexual nature of the crimes depicted on the show" part—that's pretty clear.
Is virtually an entire paragraph sourced to two pages of the book?
Why does this section suddenly skip to when the pilot aired? From this point on should be moved to broadcast history.
"As the NYPD encounters varied…" This is kind of POV--don't close paraphrase from Wolf's words in the encyclopedia's voice.
How is the fact that the studio space had air conditioning and adequate parking relevant?
"The show originally aired…on varying days in marathon blocks" This entire paragraph is unsourced. I tagged it.
This "cast and characters" table isn't necessary for the main article.
This is a lot of non-free images in the section. You can get away with one, but four is way too many.
Most of the first paragraph of this section is cited to one page of the book?
Much of this section is sourced to the later half of the book, which makes its reliability questionable for me.
I am particularly concerned about much of the fifth paragraph, as it appears to be a lot of material uncited (or possibly cited to a source of dubious reliability).
Ref 33 is dead.
Sixth paragraph also cited entirely to possibly non-RS.
Same with seventh…
The series overview section should probably be expanded, and you also flip-flop around chronologically. Besides, this should also probably be the first section.
The first "episodes" paragraph is unsourced…
Dates in the table should be sourced.
Four of the six crossovers are unsourced.
The "U.S. television ratings" prose paragraph is unsourced.
There are over ten dead links in the ratings table.
The Golden Globe ref is dead.

So some pretty big problems. :) I will give you the opportunity of a few days to respond to comments or decide what to do. I don't know why you nominated this article, considering that it appears that you haven't edited the article (at least in the last 500 edits). Anyways, I personally recommend that if you want to continue working on this article, you should take the comments and fix them before taking it to peer review and renominating again instead of attempting to rush to fix them in a period of a few days, but of course, it's up to you. BenLinus 1214^talk 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over seven days since I put it on hold, and no significant changes have been made. Fail for now. BenLinus 1214^talk 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]