Talk:Line of Duty/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like like an article that will be of interest to a general audience. On a very cursory glance, it seems close to being a Good Article already so I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of reasonable length, with 2,813 words of readable prose.
The lead is appropriately long at 315 words.
Authorship is 91.7% from the nominator with contributions from 141 other editors.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- I believe AC-12 should be singular rather than plural.
- Please replace the comma in the middle of "The opening scene of the programme featured the shooting death of a man mistaken to be a suicide bomber, this was credited to the 2005 police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in which a man was incorrectly believed to be part of bombings in London."
- The comma after "crafted it from the beginning," is superfluous.
- Similarly, "and wished to exclude it, but were persuaded by Mercurio to keep it." Should either have a subject in the second clause (e.g. "it") or no comma. And I believe BBC is singular.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- The sources are generally credible sources.
- Some sources are Amazon and the BBC, which seem close to self-publication. For examp;le, the source for the DVD release dates are the relevant Amazon product pages. Are there third party sources for this data?
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- Spot checks confirm the BBC article "Line Of Duty to return for second series", Cronin 2015, Plunkett 2016, Hogan 2012, Rigby 2015 and Kanter 2021 cover the topic.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 21.3% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The highest match is with an article in the Radio Times, followed by product pages on Amazon.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article goes into a lot of detail on some aspects of the programme but is generally compliant.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The logos are listed as "believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom." Please confirm that the images can be used.
- The other images have appropriate CC tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are appropriate.

@TheDoctorWho: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham:

I have taken care of the three comma issues you mentioned above.

That looks excellent. I really like a review with so few things to do.

The sources published by the BBC should be okay for use per WP:PRIMARY.
Same goes for the Amazon sources per the previous consensus mentioned at WP:AMAZON/WP:RSPAMAZON since those sources are only used to verify release dates.

That is good news.

I can confirm the logos are acceptable for use because they do not meet the threshold of originality in the United States

That is too.

Can you confirm with me the potential issue and/or location of the singular/plural usages of AC-12 and BBC? The two uses of AC-12's are used to show ownership back to AC-12. (The offices/headquarters belong to AC-12). I didn't see any use of BBC's in the article.

Good question. Two phrases are "AC-12 investigate" and "BBC ... were persuaded by Mercurio", but there may be others.

Other than my question in that last bullet point I believe I've addressed all other questions/concerns you've had. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: That looks great. Please see my answers above. simongraham (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: I fixed those two, I briefly skimmed through the rest and didn't notice any others. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]