This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
On Patrol: Live article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
On Patrol: Live 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. Review: May 22, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
Material from On Patrol: Live was split to List of On Patrol: Live and On Patrol: First Shift episodes on January 28, 2024 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from On Patrol: Live appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should criticism like the one in this piece by the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board be included in the critical response section? It's not exactly a traditional television review. – Recoil ( talk) 16:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for
Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the
WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Spotchecks done on statistics as well.
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by TheDoctorWho ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 03:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/On Patrol: Live; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: I'm happy to approve this if the quote could be cited. From a quick google, there are plenty of sources that do quote A&E saying this, so it should be an easy fix. Sammielh ( talk) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe I even have to point this out. I removed a piece that was highly critical of Live PD - not On Patrol Live (!) - because it's written about Live PD. Beyond that, the section is titled "Critical response" and the piece was written before one episode of On Patrol Live ever aired. How can it be included in a section titled "critical response" when the show hadn't even aired?!?!? Andrew Englehart ( talk) 20:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." If you follow that link to RSOPINION, it takes you to Wikipedia's guidelines which states "
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." So not only does this source fall within the scope of the article, but it follows Wikipedia consensus on what is considered a reliable source and guidelines on how to handle opinion pieces. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The reception information should include details such as critical reviews and analysis, audience viewership (ratings), any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact." The argument could easily be made that this source is an analysis of the series influence on a cultural level, an opinion of which could easily be formed before anything ever aired, especially when it's in the form of a revival. Live PD was partially cancelled because of its lack of it's transparency, and in the development section we talk about it's supposed increase in transparency. This Guardian source discusses that quote from Abrams critically, and I included a sentence in this article. That's just one way it improves the article.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
On Patrol: Live article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
On Patrol: Live 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. Review: May 22, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
Material from On Patrol: Live was split to List of On Patrol: Live and On Patrol: First Shift episodes on January 28, 2024 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from On Patrol: Live appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should criticism like the one in this piece by the Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board be included in the critical response section? It's not exactly a traditional television review. – Recoil ( talk) 16:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for
Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the
WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Spotchecks done on statistics as well.
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 14:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by TheDoctorWho ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 03:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/On Patrol: Live; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: I'm happy to approve this if the quote could be cited. From a quick google, there are plenty of sources that do quote A&E saying this, so it should be an easy fix. Sammielh ( talk) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe I even have to point this out. I removed a piece that was highly critical of Live PD - not On Patrol Live (!) - because it's written about Live PD. Beyond that, the section is titled "Critical response" and the piece was written before one episode of On Patrol Live ever aired. How can it be included in a section titled "critical response" when the show hadn't even aired?!?!? Andrew Englehart ( talk) 20:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." If you follow that link to RSOPINION, it takes you to Wikipedia's guidelines which states "
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." So not only does this source fall within the scope of the article, but it follows Wikipedia consensus on what is considered a reliable source and guidelines on how to handle opinion pieces. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The reception information should include details such as critical reviews and analysis, audience viewership (ratings), any award nominations or wins, and any cultural impact." The argument could easily be made that this source is an analysis of the series influence on a cultural level, an opinion of which could easily be formed before anything ever aired, especially when it's in the form of a revival. Live PD was partially cancelled because of its lack of it's transparency, and in the development section we talk about it's supposed increase in transparency. This Guardian source discusses that quote from Abrams critically, and I included a sentence in this article. That's just one way it improves the article.