Talk:A House Divided (Dallas)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleA House Divided (Dallas) 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
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 27, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "A House Divided" was the Dallas television series episode that led to the eight-month Who shot J. R.? hysteria?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 21, 2014, March 21, 2017, March 21, 2020, and March 21, 2024.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A House Divided (Dallas)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

  • Intro: While the "Who Shot JR?" is very important, I would move it to the end of the first sentence and not right in front.
  • Intro: Can you link 'second season'?
  • Overview: This entire section would probably be better suited as part of the reception section, as it talks about all the hype and ratings surrounding the episode
  • Overview: What does the 6 to 4, 3 to 4, etc mean? Maybe explain this
  • Overview: "some oddsmakers" who are "some"? Again, who are "others"?
  • Background: This section should be condensed into prose. I find those bullet points to be rather off-putting. I think something like this (the "Background" paragraph) would be excellent
  • Regular Cast: Again, this doesn't look too aesthetically pleasing to my eye. Try to match the above article and condense the names into prose, cite them using the episode, and merge them with production.
  • Speaking of production, is there any info out there on the production of the episode? A production section is kind of integral to a television article. This would be the kicker for this article. I feel that a substantial production section is very much necessary, but this one doesn't have one
    • It is hard for me to tell what happened, but it seems that people were like DAMN. Someone shot J.R!! Who did it?, then someone's lightbulb turned on and this hysteria started. I don't see anything suggesting that this was a plan. I saw one article in which Hagman said something to the effect that Someone on the crew said if everyone hates this guy so much why don't we just shoot him and then they did. I almost get the feeling that it was a run-of-the mill finale until people got excited about it. I am just not finding anything about it before it happened.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot: Is it necessary to specify Day 1, 2, 3, etc?
  • Plot: I don't think it's necessary to state how much the money would be worth today
  • Plot: "J.R. had swindled most..." Did J.R. do this in the episode, or was it prior? The tense confuses me.
    • From what I understand, the paperwork was signed in a prior episode, sealing the deal. The nationalization may have even occured in a prior episode, with this episode just being focussed on the fallout from the nationalization. Had swindled is intended to imply that the transaction occured before this scene which was the start of this episode. I.e., it happened in a prior episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: "leadin" Should have a dash between 'lead' and 'in'

Those are the issues. The production one and the organization are the main ones, however. I'll put it on hold.--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks a lot better now. There's still a few spots that need citations though. For instance, the last sentence of both the first and last paragraph under the "reception" section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best to cite the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's properly decent now. Passing! :)--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A House Divided (Dallas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_House_Divided_(Dallas)&oldid=1214913663"