Talk:Gil Grissom

Wording

The wording in the last sentence paragraph 3 in the "Personal Life" section is a little shaky. Just a comment. Russ_Frank 28 Apr 07

Grissom Gay!

I have heard rumors, and up until the Sara Sidle romantic shocker at the end of this season, that Grissom may be gay. This is backed by his habit of not dating, or talking about his private life, and his initial rebuff of female characters (including Sidle and Cathrine Willows). It would also explain his apparent ease at the somewhat kinky world of Madime whatshername.

Bytebear 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Grissom has dated in the seris a few times. Ok, maybe once. And... it wasn't really a date. But just because he doesn't have an apparent social life doesn't mean he's gay.70.30.158.135 03:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Beard

When did he began shaving that ridiculous beard?

I believe he had that beard at the start of Season 4 and kept it until the start of Season 7. He had that beard again after he returned from his sabbatical, but had it shaved soon after. - 上村七美 | talk 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Grissom's education

The article states that he is a Ph.D. I have not seen every episode, but wonder about the source for this. The CBS biography only states that he went to college. 72.73.85.77 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He's frequently referred to has "Dr. Grissom," but I don't know any more specifics than that. Presumably his Ph.D. is in entomology. --75.42.220.217 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first season, a suspect asks Grissom to give him a prescription for a "spider bite" (actually the victim's dental impression), to which Grissom replies "I'm a PhD, not an MD." 86.143.162.224 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing a doctorate diploma from the University of Chicago in the background of his office in one of the early season episodes but I can't recall which episode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.138.146 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving?

Grissom is not leaving , He's on sabbatical.

I saw the previews for the new CSI episode, and it looks like Grissom's leaving. Do you know any more about this? I did mention it in the article though. Karrmann 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA change

Under trivia, its says that he pronounces the "v" in "Nevada" as IPA [β]. I changed that to [v]. [β] is a bilabial fricative, and, although I am not an expert on American dialects, I am unaware of any English spoken there that uses bilabials consistently. I think that a labiodental [v] is more likely. Besides which, wouldn't the different pronunciations of "Nevada" depend more on the vowel? (As in [nə'vædə] vs. [nə'vadə])

Nonsensical sentence

This sentence

    He possesses a Moriarty-like nemesis, Paul Millander, over whom ultimately defeats him in death ...

doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what the writer is trying to convey. Anyone have any suggestions? --75.42.220.217 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user means to imply that, like Holmes, Grissom was responsible for his nemesis' death. The comparison is inaccurate, though; Milander committed suicide, while Holmes was directly responsible for Moriarty's death at Reichenbach Falls. I'm going to modify. Konczewski 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bruno the Dog

In the trivia section it mentions that Grissom has a dog... in what episode/season is this mentioned? I've never come across bit of trivia before and to be honest I'm slightly suspicious of it's validity. Crydwyn 213.78.53.8 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

He definitely had a dog, but I can't remember an episode ref. More pressingly, gotta kill that trivia section. Editus Reloaded 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Muahahaha! Die trivia die! Sorry, sorry... Editus Reloaded 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The dog appears in the seventh season episode "Leapin' Lizards." Bruno, the dog that appears in the episode, is apparently the actor William Petersen's dog. I doubt it's significant enough to mention in this article, though. --Bookworm857158367 12:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The dog is called Hank in the show but is called Bruno in real life and is William Peterson's dog. Bruno also makes a brief appearance in season 8 episode 12 - Grissom's Divine Comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.14.81 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Other Significant Events"

I deleted this section - basically, it was just a really short recap of the events of a few episodes. Now that we're seven seasons into the show, I didn't see the significance of these particular episodes (or this particular serial killer) over other episodes, killers, and events. In fact, I'd say that this information is so trivial as to not be necessary in a character bio at all (it certainly belongs in the episode articles, and the informatin is already there). Also, this section could become dangerously similar to a trivia section, which has already (and rightly so) been eliminated, with the information integrated into other sections of the article.Soojmagooj 04:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

204.16.43.47 01:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Grissom autistic or Asperger's?

I've seen this theory in several places. He's a loner, not very social, sometimes awkward, and has seemingly narrow interests. Has anyone ever heard anyone from the show state that he's supposed to be autistic or Asperger's? I personally think he's too good at subtle facial expressions, which is usually a problem for people with Asperger's. Of course this is probably because William Petersen is good at facial expressions.

My understanding of autism is that people with the condition have difficulty understanding a theory of states of mind or subjectivity. Grissom seems more like he's highly-introverted and focused. Autarch (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In the episode Rashomama in season six was the first time i thought Grisom have Aspergers. Having Aspergers myself, i quickly recognised his flowing eyes jumping from detail to detail and focusing on the shiny necklace. I felt right at home. Grissom is Asocial - or at least not very sociable, even if he is grown up he is still socially awkward, a loner that focus so much on his work that he forgets everything else (like the staff review papers he forgot), he has intense special interests (bugs) and are a bit of a know it all in general. I generally dont like to point fingers and say "Woooah! Aspie", but this is the closest representation i have seen of a professional on the spectrum. At least from my perspective. Going OT here for a while but you should know that Aspergers and Autism is not a list of criterias that has to be matched it is different for everyone, it goes all the way from helpless to genius. Some of us live independent lives and have careers in Physics, Psychology - and Forensics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.241.216.86 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

GA fail

I have quick-failed this GA because it has no references. The lead section is very short as well, and needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Wrad 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i've expanded the lead section and the references section. i'm renominating this article.Yamanbaiia 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that this article is missing is how the character was created. He's talked about as if he were real. We need to know more about the actor. How was he chosen for the role? Why did writers make him the way he is? Also, how is the character received by the general public? Is he popular? What have reviews said about him? Wrad 20:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I have quick-failed this GA because none of the previous issues have been addressed. The article is written as if Gil is a real person and as Wrad mentions, nothing about how he was cast. There are still too few inline citations and this needs to be corrected before any further GA nomination. Centy – – 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say, though, references are pouring in fast, this article is improving quickly. Wrad 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

tell me about it, i can't believe how much time i spent doing all the references. i'm determined to make this one a featured article. By the way, i had renominated the article before Wrad's revision, sorry about all the things that were missing. I am now using Jack Sparrow and Pauline Fowler as models for Gil Grissom. Yamanbaiia 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't going to make FA if it can't even make GA. References aren't the primary issue here, it's how the article is written. Since he's a fictional character, we need to write the article as Wikipeida requires us to write articles based on fictional characters: for example, the first thing that we need to get rid of the status and birthdate. That is something that goes on a fansite, not on the Gil Grissom Wikipedia article. The article needs to be written from an "out of universe" perspective, which means not writing the article like a biography, but writing the article by explaining his development in the series as the creators'/ producers' developed him.--VorangorTheDemon 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Haviland+Gil picture

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the picture showing Gil signing to "Tom Haviland," the character is cited as being played by Chad Michael Murray, whom looks NOTHING like the person in the picture. Unless a young guy was done up a LOT to look like an older person (which afaik hasn't been done in CSI), is this reference correct? Unless there's ANOTHER CMM and this one is simply linking to the wrong article...--TheSweet 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, Grissom is not with "Tom Haviland" but with "dr.Phillipe Gerard" (actor Raymond J. Barry). Though Murray does appear in The Accused is Entitled. Sorry for the confusion, no make-up artist is that good!!Yamanbaiia 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-GA review

This is in response to Yaman's request. I really like how the references are coming. It looks a lot better. Here are a few things I might fix before renominating:

• The Lead contains information not in the body of the article. It's also really short. Could this be expanded so that it summarized the article as a whole? See WP:LEAD for more on how to improve the lead.
• A lot of the character descriptions and plot summaries could be cut. I would say even by about half. I don't really care if he gets migraines every year, do you? Try to keep it to the most important and basic information.
• Is there any information on reception of this character by viewers?

[ Good luck on GA! Wrad 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lead" expanded, "public reaction" section added. i didn't delete much, the "biography" section seems to me pretty concise. Probably a lot could be cut out of the "relationship" and" personality" section but some GA articles describe absolouteley everything about a character, so i don't see the dammage of this one having too much information.Yamanbaiia 01:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Now it's starting to look like a GA. I probably was overreacting to the length of character description a bit. It looks better now that it has a reception section. I only see two sections unsourced: "Evolution through the years" and "Comparison to Sherlock". Also, I'd put the new reception paragraphs after the character description. It makes sense chronologically. Wrad 02:20, 7 October 2007] (UTC)

Some quick thoughts: The section about Holmes looks like original research and should probably go unless you can get a reference to someone inside the production saying that was their intention. However, that is the only major issue. One minor niggle - quite a few reference links are given as a full URL and formatting them within single square brackets with a title would not only be useful but in the double column format, at my screen resolution the long links in the first column overlap with the second column (obviously adding a title, and probably using the URL cite template, would also make it easier for people to read and understand what the link is before clicking). Those two things should really help tighten things up. (Emperor 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

All good points. Wrad 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this has now been nominated for GA and that last set of changes has really tightened things up a lot and it is looking really solid. Yamanbaiia has done a lot of solid work on this and I think it stands a great chance of going through this time (and if not then it is in a good state for a quick tighten and it should be set). Fingers crossed. (Emperor 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Sherlock

I feel bad for deleting the Sherlock part because probably a lot of people added to it, all the comparisons are based on facts, but i cannot find any confirmation that the producers (although they probably did) meant Grissom to be a 20th century Holmes. I'll save it on my hardrive and if i ever find a source i'll add it again.

(wish i could use uncyclopedia as a source: "Holmes called on some favours owed to him by Doctor Who and travelled to the 21st Century where he became an actor and played Gil Grissom in CSI.")Yamanbaiia 10:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want drop the section in here and if people can source it they can put it back. I wouldn't feel too bad - if you hadn't removed it I would have. It may all be based on existing facts but facts arranged into a new shape is still original research. (Emperor 12:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

The unsourced section in question:

That entire section is both speculation and WP:OR --VorangorTheDemon 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Parallelism with Sherlock Holmes

Gil Grissom has a more than passing similarity to Sherlock Holmes. Like Holmes, Grissom is dispassionate with a fierce devotion to logic and little regard for societal norms of behavior; Grissom once smashed mustard jars in a grocery store to illustrate a theory ("I-15 Murders"), similarly, Holmes once practiced spearing a pig at a market to determine how strong a man would have to be to transfix a man with a harpoon.

Grissom possesses a Moriarty-like nemesis, Paul Millander, whom he pursues in several episodes ("Pilot;", "Anonymous;" and "Identity Crisis"). Coincidentally, "Paul Millander" has the same initials as "Professor Moriarty." There's also a woman, Lady Heather, in whom he takes an unusual interest, their relationship is similar to that of Irene Adler and Holmes. Both Irene and Lady Heather enchant Holmes and Grissom with their beauty, their wit and their resolution. Lady Heather is, almost always, wearing victorian dresses which are reminiscent to Holmes' era ("Slaves of Las Vegas", "Lady Heather's Box", "Pirates of the Third Reich" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Dominatrix").

Yamanbaiia 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing problems

Does anyone know what that "cause of death" "allign left" junk that is at the top of the aritcle? I'm trying to get rid of it, but when you go into edit, it isn't there. --VorangorTheDemon 12:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured out the problem. One of the templates in the table was deleted, therefore it's screwing up the table itself. All the CSI article have this issue. Should we switch to another table? --VorangorTheDemon 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that last night but couldn't fix it, if you can do it, great!. the problem goes all the way back to the CSI's project character template (Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise/Character template), this is very strange.Yamanbaiia 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. The last edit broke the template (and doesn't seem necessary) so I reverted it. (Emperor 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Sara Sidle section: Cruft?

Is such a large section even necessary? The relationship between Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle is amusing, but their relationship is not really important enough to Grissom's character (as pertaining to his primary role in the series) for an entire section, and I believe that the purpose of this large section is simply to be eye-candy for fans. Unfortunately, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CRUFT don't agree with having a section that is so detailed, and taking up a good chunk of space, and it will without a doubt seriously inhibit the GA potential of this article. --VorangorTheDemon 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would seriously hurt it, but it would probably get it put on hold for awhile. Someone should probably summarize the relationships section into one or two simple paragraphs. Wrad 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it's just it takes up way too much space on the article, and most of the info in it is both crufty and WP:OR. I'm just concerned about the intricate details and the size of the section, which to me states that it's there simply to make the article fun to read for fans and the seemingly endless void of Grissom/Sara"shippers". --VorangorTheDemon 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Wrad 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn it! i really, really like that part, and i hate WP:ILIKEIT! But it was cruft and OR, so there, i fixed it. Yamanbaiia 21:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Much better - the relationship has been the focus of newspaper reports so can be properly referenced. I suspect it would be possible to trim down some more. Unless we can reference the material about the earlier phases of relationship it could also be seen as speculation. (Emperor 21:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

GA review by Mmoyer

Though overall a nicely written article, I am placing it on hold pending the resolution of a few small, easily addressable issues. Here is the list:

• Change "References" section title to "External Links"
• Change "Footnotes" section title to "References"
• Sentence reading, "By killing off the sexual tension between the two characters, and making them an item, they would be adding more personal drama to the show, appealing then some of Grey's younger audience" is grammatically clumsy and the last phrase is non-sensical.
• Remove all non-quoted contractions. I see there's, don't, doesn't, what's, he's, didn't
• There are some words spelled with apostrophes that are merely plural and should not have them, including show's
• The assertion that Grissom views Warrick as his successor must be supported by a reference. If there is no reference, it must be removed per WP:NOR.
• "The auction ended October 7th, with the prop being sold for U$15600, that CBS donated to the National CASA Association." This sentence contains an extraneous comma.

As I said, these are minor, easily fixed issues. Please leave me a note on my talk page if you would like me to re-review earlier than the 7-day period. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick edit - the first 2 points won't quite work (as there is a book in there for starters) but it is a good point as there is a wiki in there which can't be used as a source. I think the change should satisfy WP:LAYOUT and WP:EL now. (Emperor 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I've run through it quickly with the points above in mind [1] - see how that looks. If I have missed any rogue apostrophes or contractions highlight them and I'll sort it out.

I've also flagged 4 places that need some clarification - there is the Warrick issue mentioned above and 3 places I thought it worth specifying which episode is being referred to. Those should be fixable (and with a bit of pondering I might be able to work them out) but I'll also toss this over to the project and see if they have any ideas. If we can't reference the Warrick statement for now we can always move it here and if anyone can source it then it can be put back.

Also I moved References above Footnotes - this is consistent with WP:LAYOUT and I felt it worth doing as some of the footnotes use shortened references to the book, in which case putting things that way round seems a good idea. (Emperor 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

I have knocked off the first 3 points (check page history, the edit summaries mark the changes out clearly) and will move on further. Hard copy references are now under "further reading" and footnotes (stuff using <ref> markup) is now "references" as requested. I am in the middle of rewriting the Warrick sentence, with a piece of fact from an episode so that we don't lose the "mentor/pupil" stuff, which I think is quite true. Editus Reloaded 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd already addressed the first two points and have restored the edit (mentioned above - comment of 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)). WP:LAYOUT is specific about what goes in each section: "Further reading" is specifically for further reading, the reference section is for a bulleted list of works used as sources (which is what they are being used as) and footnotes is where the <references/> or {{reflist}} goes. Hope that helps. (Emperor 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Anyway looking through I think that nearly covers everything. The only things are the ones I flagged - Catherine being called described as a "wife" and his relationship with Lady Heather. The former should be easy but that latter might be tricky as I suspect it was implied but I'll do some digging. (Emperor 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

OK I have fixed the last issues I am aware of, which should leave it good to go.

If anyone needs more info on Grissom and Lady Heather then see the sources I just added to her entry - I didn't want to overload what is really an aside but this from the TV Guide can provide more information and address any questions that might emerge. [2] (Emperor 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

The original statement about Grissom viewing Warrick as his sucessor was correct, i'll reverse that and add the reference (Episode Leaving Las Vegas) see whole dialogue between Warrick and Grissom here. Everything else seems to be fixed! COOOOOOOL. Yamanbaiia 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah good thanks for that - it wasn't a deal breaker but it is good to have that angle boxed off. (Emperor 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Re-review completed, GA awarded! Good job to all!! Mmoyer 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done everyone - a lot of hard work has paid off. Again special thanks to Yamanbaiia who has put in the time and effort needed to get this up to standard. What next? ;) (Emperor 02:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Yeeeeai! This was a group effort!, now we should make this FA (along with Sidle) and Lady H and CSI's article will become GA very soon! Yamanbaiia 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's-like traits

The reference to Asperger's-like traits puzzles me - it looks like a term that tries to class Gil as a person with Asperger's while not meeting the [[3]], particular the "repetitive, stereotyped behaviour". Granted, I'm not a psychologist, but I wondered if describing Gil Grissom as introverted would be more accurate. Autarch 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The exchange referred to is:

GG: "I think he's autistic."

NS: "Autistic? You mean like Rain Man?"

GG: "Rain Man was a savant. Extremely rare. Aaron Pratt is a high-functioning autistic man with superior right-brain ability."

NS; "Kind of sounds like you."

Source

So it might be that you could rephrase it to say:

Grissom is introverted and detail-oriented and in an exchange with Nick Stokes when he suggested a suspect was "a high-functioning autistic man with superior right-brain ability", Stokes replied "Kind of sounds like you."

Which would cover the bases and not have us specifically saying he has Asperger's like traits. Although it is clearly something they like to hint at it seems unlikely they actually intend for him to have Asperger's or if they did they want to have him at the extreme end of the spectrum as, although he keeps himself to himself, he does have good people skills and doesn't seem to have difficulty empathising with people. So rewording might take the emphasis of it. (Emperor 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

I suggest:

Grissom is introverted and detail-oriented, and in a second season episode was compared to a "high-functioning autistic man with superior right-brain ability"

I think it's better when we keep out the why we say what we are saying and just say it. It's less in-universe this way. -Yamanbaiia 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good and is less us stating he has Asperger's like characteristics and more us leading it the idea that it has been suggested. Definitely somewhere a quote is needed as a simple reference to the episode is probably not enough - good to keep it trimmed down though. (Emperor 01:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Introversion is only a part of aspergers. While Grissom is an introvert, he is in control of his life. He loved Sara enough to ask her to marry him, and he does care enough about Lady Heather to ask her for help... and probably with his relationship with Sara. His hobby of riding roller coasters seems to be a release of control. He's burned out, like Sara. At his age, it might be a mid life crisis and a focus on what is important in his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Grissom leaving

Dose anybody know why Gil is leaving the show --72.250.234.4 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hank

I don't have the chance to edit the article just now, but the actor's dog Bruno just showed up in "Grissom's Divine Comedy" with the in-show name of Hank. Grissom asks the shrink about whether Hank acting depressed could be because he was taking on his owner's feelings. I checked, and his first appearance is in the episode "Leapin' Lizards." He looks like he's a typical boxer, although if anyone else knows more about his breed then please add your info. Critterkeeper (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lady Heather

she is just mention once as a side relationship think she deserves maybe a sentence or two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.247.222 (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious background

If memory serves me, there was a scene in the episode "Alter Boys" where a Catholic priest deduces that Gil has a Catholic upbringing because he addressed the priest as "Father" rather than any other title. Can anyone confirm or remember the quote? I've found some quotes from the episode, but not the exact one that I want. It would be a useful reference for the article, giving more background to the character.Autarch (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember the quote. The scene has to do while Grissom is inspecting inside a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.200.120 (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Will not return as a series regular

I added a citation needed template to the part about Peterson confirming not coming back as regular since William_Petersen#Career states he confirmed the opposite (I also did the same to the latter article).Olivier Diotte (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gil Grissom. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Hein-Sight/Note-Csi-Dont/700003961%26start%3D30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012015720/http://www.billypetersen.com/V4/home.html to http://www.billypetersen.com/V4/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012215344/http://william-petersen.com/ to http://www.william-petersen.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418065010/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/16/thursday-ratings-csis-petersen-farewell-draws-23-million/10960 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/16/thursday-ratings-csis-petersen-farewell-draws-23-million/10960

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) 04:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Gil

My best friend did 2001:56A:F128:1E00:30C1:D847:235C:4329 (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Gil Grissom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Violations of GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2007. There are many parts without sources or uses unreliable/primary sources. For instance, many claims in the Reception section are sourced to primary sources or none at all. I also see a lot of WP:CRUFT. Would need a lot of work to maintain GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 09:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that there's cruft. However, I am not especially well-versed in the fine line between cruft and not. Certainly the details and quote about his father's death is something to be removed as cruft.--SidP (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.