Talk:Bop Gun (Homicide: Life on the Street)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBop Gun (Homicide: Life on the Street) 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.
Good topic starBop Gun (Homicide: Life on the Street) is part of the Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 27, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 24, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jake Gyllenhaal has a brief part as the son of a widower played by Robin Williams in the Homicide: Life on the Street episode, "Bop Gun"?
Current status: Good article

Leo[edit]

In the plot summary, it says "A devastated Leo finally agrees to Felton that Vaughn was indeed the shooter." Should this be Howard instead of Leo? Leo is the actor, and Howard the character, or was there actually a character called Leo? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, you're correct. I fixed it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bop Gun (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 14:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing the article. Its an interesting article that conveys the flavor of the episode well. (I made a few copy edits which you are free to change.)

  • My one complaint is that per WP:LEAD, I think the lead could be beefed up more to reflect the contents of the article, including some indication of its ratings. (What were the high ratings attibuted to?)
    • I took a shot at this. Let me know if it's better. Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 14:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou (Talk) 14:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I made a few minor wording and punctuation changes.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article is well sourced, with no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article remains focused on the subject while covering the relevant areas.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  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! A fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]