Talk:The Long Bright Dark/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rhain1999 (talk · contribs) 05:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I shall be conducting this review; it's my first, so bear with me.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article is great; I can't find many things that require attention.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   A few minor things. See below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• I'd change "the pilot episode of Boardwalk Empire" to "the pilot episode of Boardwalk Empire".

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• "Martin and Cohle". Shouldn't this be written as "Martin and Rustin"/"Marty and Rust" or "Hart and Cohle", for consistency?

Done. That was definitely the intent, but I agree that "Martin and Rustin" maintains more consistency. Tried to do the same with other parts of the article. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC )

• "... and—suddenly—invites Cohle ...". I don't think the en dash is needed here. In fact, I'd reconsider the use (and/or placement) of the word "suddenly".

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is there no confirmed actor for the character Anette? IMDb lists Charleigh Harmon as the actress, and her name's definitely in the credits...

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Production

Development

• "... thanks to the firm support of Anonymous Content". I'm not sure if "thanks" is the most neutral word in this context. Maybe "encouraged by Anonymous Content"?

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Casting

• I think the first few sentences should be written differently; the first sentence in particular is a little confusing among first glance. May I suggest: "McConaughey and Harrelson were among a small pool of actors considered suitable candidates for top billing. Producers contracted McConaughey, who had recently finished filming Killer Joe (2011), before True Detective was greenlit by HBO."

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Filming

• I believe Zeitlin's short film is titled Glory at Sea. Also, the year of release should be added in parentheses (as with Killer Joe in the previous section).

Done. —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception

Ratings

• The commas in the final sentence are a little confusing. I'd change it to something along the lines of: "The United Kingdom terrestrial premiere was broadcast by Sky Atlantic on February 22, 2014, garnering 707,000 viewers."

Done.—DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical response

• Like many others, I'm not particularly fond of the use of the word "rave" in this context. Maybe it was "critically acclaimed" or it "received generally positive reviews", but not "rave reviews" please.

Done.—DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the quote in the box should end with a full stop.

Done.—DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I love this show—one of my all time favourites—and this article really did it justice. Feel free to argue against any of the points that I have made. Thanks!
-- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. :) —DAP388 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns so quickly and professionally. After one final look at the article, I can't find any other problems that are within the scope of GA. This is truly a good article. Here you go: . -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 5 January 2015 (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.