# Talk:Hill Street Station

The episode aired as a single one-hour premier.  According to this non-RS there is confusion because Hulu presents the first two episodes together as a single episode. IMDb also presents episode cast credits including characters from the second episode as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Assuming this is a single episode pilot and that the second episode aired on the 17th, there are a couple proquest articles that I ran across with content for the second episode:

TELEVISION / BY JACK THOMAS; A GOOD SHOW DOOMED TO FAIL?: [FIRST EDITION], Thomas, Jack. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Boston, Mass] 13 Jan 1981: 1.
A lot of detail about the episode storylines.
TELEVISION / BY WILLIAM A. HENRY 3D; ; NBC'S PEACOCK NOT SO PROUD; LAST OF THREE ARTICLES: [FIRST EDITION], WILLIAM A. HENRY 3d. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Boston, Mass] 25 July 1980: 1.
A little detail about how the original shooting had one officer die, but that it would be re-edited so that both officers could return for the 2nd episode and thereafter.
NBC-TV WILL INTRODUCE 5 PROGRAMS NEXT MONTH, Fraser, C GeraldView Profile. New York Times [New York, N.Y] 27 Dec 1980: 2.42.
Schedule of first five episodes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hill Street Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Last episode of this season to need reviewed.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Wikilink first season
linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No need for references in the lead. Move [1] to a section called "Reception" (more on that later) and [2] and [3] to production.
O.K. I moved a lot of text with the refs. Not sure if LEAD is full enough.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"He is compared to the title character in Barney Miller,…" Who is the person comparing him to the title character?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"…and the show is compared to Barney Miller and Kojak." Again, who is doing the comparing?
fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I feel that the cast section should be merged into prose and added to the production section. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, per say, but I think it looks rather clunky.
I would make "Background" into a sub-header of "Plot"
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that the "Critical Review" and "Accolades" sections should be made into sub-headers for a larger section called "Reception".
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
You mention that the episode won/was nominated for several awards, but the second part of the paragraph is entirely unsourced.
The only source that I have for many of these awards is IMDB.com, which is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Are there any references out there that give ratings info?
I don't know how to find ratings content for average shows.  Top rated shows seem to pop up in Google News. I am of the impression that the ratings were pedestrian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  06:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
There's some issues with the article, but I believe it can be fixed up. I will place this on hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I made some minor changes. I hide the bottom part of the accolades section. It really needs a reference, but I didn't delete it, just used wiki formatting to hide it up until a cite presents itself. Also, I expanded the lead. It was fine the way it was, it just didn't need the references. Other than that, it looks good. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is probably too picky to be worth thinking about too much, but here's some commentary on the uniqueness of the characters, the idea that the "episode also introduces a host of unique characters". That characters were original compared to most crime dramas.The NYT review said, "A good ol' boy patrolman wears cowboy boots and a string tie with his uniform. His radio-car partner, inevitably, is a young, well-educated black. The precinct sergeant behaves like a house mother, the captain's alimony checks bounce and the leader of the city's Swat team thinks he's George C. Scott playing Patton." (emphasis mine) [1] Or a "fairly standard mix of types", from another NYT review.[2].I always thought Bobby HIll's character was a typecast Sidney  Poitier "flawless negro" meant to counteract negative stereotypes by being utterly professional and a gentleman to an absurd degree, but lacking in humanity and believability.  Lt. Howard Hunter, besides recalling Patton, was a classic take on Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. Henry Goldblume is a stereotypical bleeding heart liberal. Renko is your typical Archie Bunker/Chief Gillespie "racist who learns a thing or two". Fay Furillo is the shrewish ex. Joyce Davenport, Career Girl.The show was unique in several ways, and over time the characters broke from their stereotyped origins, but not in the first episodes. Some reliable sources might have found the characters unique, but there was not agreement on that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this: "Belker's proclivity for biting the ankles of perpetrators redeems itself in this episode." really what the sources say, or is it really "reveals itself", i.e., "is also introduced"? I didn't see the pilot, so I left this alone, but if it is indeed "redeemed," how? Does he prevent him from running out the door with the iron grip of his teeth? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

At first, Belker's biting is just disturbing and weird, but later Belker, who is rather short, uses the, uh, "talent" to advantage, physically subduing a much larger and stronger man who had shook off the other cops in a rampage through the station. It's highly contrived and meant as comic relief, but in a nutshell, that's Hill Street Blues for you. In later episodes they still make fun of Belker's biting, but he also gets more respect. The later, more formulaic seasons would repeat the Belker-stops-a-giant-by-biting-him trope, and it would be less and less amusing each go around. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hill Street Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226092805/http://www.wgfoundation.org/LibraryCatalog/award/search.ashx to http://www.wgfoundation.org/LibraryCatalog/award/search.ashx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)