Talk:Boardwalk Empire (Boardwalk Empire episode)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boardwalk Empire (Boardwalk Empire episode) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Boardwalk Empire (Boardwalk Empire episode) 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 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boardwalk Empire (episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's lead is too short - see WP:Lead, the plot section is too long - see WP:PLOT, and the cast list is not informative and is unsourced - see WP:Embed and WP:Verify. GAN on hold for an initial seven days to allow these issues to be dealt. A fuller review will follow when those issues have been attended to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work has been done on the article, so I'll extend the hold for another seven days to allow the lead to be developed with more information from the Production section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable - there are no edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. I would prefer plots to be sourced - they are not difficult to source as generally there are plot summaries available; however, current consensus is that plots don't require sourcing as the TV show/film/book itself is felt to be an appropriate source. The article is appropriately sourced according to guidelines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased. Seems fair and neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage seems appropriate, and in line with other TV pilot articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

There are two non-free images, and the rationales are a little vague for both. Look at the rationale for File:SG1-10x06 wizard of oz spoof.png, which is more detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

I've done some work on the lad, but I have included too much plot, and not enough production. The plot paragraph should be trimmed back, and more production details included. Extend hold for seven days (to 11 Jan) to allow this to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

I have finished off the work. There really wasn't much to do. Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy

There is a new episode templating system for episodic writer and director awards (note that there are no best episode awards so best screenplay and best director are the closes proxy). This article needs to include a lot of Emmy content. Please have a look at all of this episode's emmy nominations for starters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boardwalk Empire (episode). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]