# Talk:Blood Ties (Homicide: Life on the Street)

I had removed a plot summary tag and explained my rationale in the edit summary, but since it's back I'll address this in the talk page before removing it again. This article encompasses three episodes, and WP:MOSTV says that a plot summary should be no more than 500 words per episode. Each of the three plot summaries fit the description in this case, so it's not too long and thus I don't think the tag is appropriate. Furthermore, I'll be adding more and more to this article over the next few days and the rest of the article will more than outweight the plot summary length. Unless anyone objects here, I'm going to remove the plot summary tag again in a day or two. If anyone does object, please let me know on what grounds, and/or what you would suggest I do to fix it. (These episodes are rather complex and detailed, I don't think there's a whole lot of fat to trim; minor subplots have already been excluded from the summaries altogether.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What does "even though they come from the best of intentions" mean in the lead? It is a bit unclear what the "they" refers to and what the general gist of the phrase is. Thanks! (My writing class was copyediting the lead this morning and we were wondering.) Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this could probably use more clarity. In the episodes, Gee and Pembleton show discrimination by refusing to treat the Wilson as suspects. They aren't being deliberately discriminatory, and their intentions are good in protecting the Wilsons, but it turns out to be discrimination nonetheless. So I tried to include the "best of intentions" bit to reflect this element of the story. Maybe it should be reworded? Or just removed altogether? — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood Ties (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Passes when checked against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 
The lead contains a mixture of tenses, past and present.  It would be preferable to put all in the past. Y I agree with your descision to keep the first two senstences in present tense.  all reads well now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
The article is adequately referenced. I assume good faith for them as they are all print sources.
b (citations to reliable sources): 
All reliable
c (OR): 

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): 

b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I would like the tense of the lead to be made consistent, otherwise no problems.  On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for your hard work, I can confirm  that this is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)