# Talk:Night of the Dead Living

The article seems to contain an error "was seen by about 9.5 million viewers in its original broadcast, marking the lowest viewership of any episode in Homicide's first season." Compare 9.5m with the 6.52m that saw Son_of_a_Gun_(Homicide:_Life_on_the_Street), for example. 98.235.81.240 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the ninth episode of the series? It's episode 3 on the UK DVD release. --82.22.113.43 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

HI dear IP. If you should read this. I was thinking the same question as I also have the UK DVD release. In fact it was planned by the creators of the series to be the 3rd episode of the first season but NBC broadcasted it as the 9th episode (season finale). So the DVD box is actually right. ;) 87.78.9.193 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night of the Dead Living/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Bear in mind this is my first GA review, so I hope this goes right. I've never seen Homicide before so I figure I should be nice and neutral about it. Here goes.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Prose style is clear and informative; tone is suitable for encyclopaedic content.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I see no MOS violations/deviations.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Inline citations are present and used well.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Would like to see citations other than from book sources that can't be readily checked - do web pages exist to support this article as well? Not a major point but would be useful to have.
C. No original research: 
Pretty simple, there's no OR present.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Covers the subject in sufficient depth as to provide a good level information.
B. Focused: 
Does not deviate from the subject or wander into other territory.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral and unbiased. The article does not rely on opinion or rhetoric.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Article has no revision disputes, nor is it changing rapidly or drastically.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Lead (and only) image checks out.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Would perhaps like to see a second image used further down the page, perhaps of production or the main cast. Not vital at all though.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Overall, I think this article is a nice little example of how television episodes should be covered here. It's informative and does a good job of being such. In light of this, I'm going to pass this article as a Good Article.