Talk:Ghost of a Chance (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 21:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article and will list my comments below.

• "The episode marked the first major developments in the Watson case, a major season one story arc based on the real-life slaying of Latonya Kim Wallace is featured in David Simon's non-fiction book Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, from which the series was adapted." - I think there is something wrong with this sentence.
• " It was also the first episode to feature a murder in a wealthy rural setting, which was noted for demonstrating better than most American television police shows that murders can take place in various socioeconomic circumstances." - I understand this sentence but I think it is tortured.
• "The episode was seen by 9.5 million households in its original broadcast, considered a disappointment due to the drop in viewership from the post-Super Bowl series debut, which had more than 18 million viewers" - might be easier to read if it was phrased as "The episode, seen by 9.5 million households in its original broadcast, was considered a disappoint...."
• "a dead elderly man" - would "elderly, dead man" be better?
• "When he wakes up, the man immediately starts arguing with his wife Jessie (Gwen Verdon)" - he was merely asleep?
• " Bolander, himself a divorcee" - for some reason I think of a divorcée as being female, but maybe I am wrong.
• "Prosecuting attorney Ed Danvers (Željko Ivanek) tells Howard (Melissa Leo) that if she cannot find more evidence against murder suspect Ralph Fenwick (Michael Sheldon), Danvers will have to plead to manslaughter." - he is a suspect for what murder? who is he?

• " Howard's superstitious beliefs would be featured in future episodes, particularly the fourth season episode "Heartbeat", which featured a black cat" - "featured" is repeated
• " and praised it for not resorting to "silly car chases (and) blazing guns".[16] Chris Kaltenbach of The Baltimore Sun praised the episode," repetition of "praised"

Other than these nitpicks, the article seems fine. Everything else seems to be in order.

Xtzou (Talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think I got everything, but let me know if anything is out of order. Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 03:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks. Xtzou (Talk) 13:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I corrected a few minor wording and punctuation issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well sourced. I see no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article remains focused on the subject but covers the relevant areas.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: A wonderful, concise article

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! Another fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 13:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)