Talk:True Detective

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It is clear from the direction of the discussion that concerns over recentism are sufficiently strong such that no consensus to move the article will be reached at this time. Xoloz (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• True Detective (TV series) → True Detective
• True Detective → True Detective (magazine)

– The TV series is currently one of the most talked about series on television, garnering critical acclaim and a large fan following. The magazine article is a stub with one reference from 2008. Page views over 30 days (1,512,822 vs. 72,069) and 90 days (2,175,517 vs. 100,717) clearly indicate which article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at present. A disambiguation page is not necessary, per WP:TWODABS. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clear case of COMMONNAME. A hatnote should suffice. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's clear what our readers are likely to be searching for. —Gendralman (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What is currently talked about and what is the primary topic at present is not reasons good enough for me, but if you think it will remain so for the foreseeable future, then I think the move is quite all right. Bandy boy (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It is also abundantly clear that most of True Detective's traffic is from people looking for the TV show. [1] Note the large upswing in traffic in 2014 when the show starts airing, and the weekly spikes in the graph which will be familiar to any TV editor. --SubSeven (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. In reply to Bandy Boy's comment, imo Truce Detective magazine will never again have the prominence it once had in public consciousness and in all likelihood will fade to obscurity. If the HBO series goes ahead as planned, it will become far more notable than the magazine.--Reedmalloy (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk about "recentism". Sure there's a great TV (that I enjoy watching) but since it's new and now it shouldn't automatically usurp the older usages that you youngsters who think nothing happened before they were born happened to ignore until the TV show came around. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you give us an actual reason, founded in policy, why a stub article (despite being eight years old) which had very minimal traffic before the TV show was announced, should not be 'usurped' by the currently 11th most viewed article on English Wikipedia? --SubSeven (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:RECENTISM (an essay), a show that has 6 episodes is too recent for a lasting historical impact to be measured--Maybe I'm a little more deliberative than the editors who jump on every development of popular culture, wondering what happens 10 years from now after the show is no longer relevant...and another "True Detective" pops up. Comparatively, if we reduce the application of WP:UCN to a hypothetical comparison...HM the Queen of England almost made Will & Kate the Duke and Duchess of Newcastle instead of Cambridge...would we usurp the long dead, Duke of Newcastle who led England as Prime Minister during the Seven-Years War and for 30 years before running colonial affairs in North America for an heir presumptive who might have the title for a few more years before being elevated to become Prince of Wales? A magazine that has been the forefront of crime short fiction for decades (whether it is a stub is largely inconsequential and irrelevant, most of Wikipedia's literary content is stubs, sadly), shouldn't be trumped by a 6-week old television "now popular" show that was named after the magazine.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, let's try and look ten years into the future. Here is an HBO show (same network), that was considerably less popular than True Detective, that was cancelled nine years ago. Looks fairly relevant. It is getting about 900 hits per day... versus the 50 per day True Detective was getting... --SubSeven (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Perhaps, but Carnivale doesn't link to the show--it links as a redirect to the older pre-lenten festival (Carnival) which likely had less hits than the show when it aired. 10 years later, I can honestly say (having liked the show), that your mention of it was the first time in about two years that I've thought about it. Carnivàle is the show article, but there's a greater chance that people get there while trying to find the festival (given accented vowels in various languages).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Comparison, SubSeven - for popular US TV shows currently: House of cards vs. House of Cards (U.S. TV series) vs. other uses; Elementary (TV series) vs. a disambiguation page; Person of interest vs. Person of Interest (TV series); NCIS (TV series) vs. a disambiguation page. Most often, where there isn't an unambiguously unique name, TV series are given a parenthetical. When there's a competing name--even historical and not as "new and improved" popular, there's a parenthetical. When the name is unique, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, or Modern Family, there's no parenthetical. However, True Detective magazine is a significant competitor and not toppled by a TV show that is just simply "now".--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Fair points, I just want to clarify I was only pointing out that Carnivàle is not an irrelevant article ten years after the fact, and True Detective (TV series) will not be either, like you were suggesting. --SubSeven (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
            • I doubt Carnivàle's 900 hits are for the show, especially when you look at historic trends, it seems to gain interest after Christmas each year until March...just at the time a lot of people are getting drunk, showing their breasts for beads, or thinking about travelling to warmer places known for such parties. When a lot of dumb Americans see that accent in search results, they probably mistakenly think that's the celebration, not the TV show. Nevermind that there are two resorts named Carnivale--one in Vegas, a ton of casino entertainment locales, and a European river cruise operator. Most of those hits that you're claiming for the largely forgotten TV show easily can be written off as misbegotten searches.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, pure recentism. I'm a fan of the show, but there is no primary topic. True Detective should certainly be moved to True Detective (magazine), however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blatant recentism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leaving it as it is helps to find it (True Detective could mean many things), no need to change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not yet. An old magazine published for many years vs. a new TV show. Too early to tell which should win out. Hierophant443 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per ColonelHenry and recentism. At most, True Detective could be a dab page and both be linked to it. But as for Primary, the historic magazine is clearly the antecedent to the other. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Recentism; eloquently explained by ColonelHenry, Montanabw et al above. Great show, and I rewatch it all the time looking for clues =) but this should not usurp the magazine simply because one is hip and fashionable today and the other is no longer. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pornographic Photo in Episodes Table

In the table of episodes, there is a big old pornographic picture that I'm pretty sure doesn't belong there. But I cannot decipher the code enough to figure out how to remove it. danzig138 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

International airing?

The article seems exclusively concerned with US airing. I believe it is/was available in other countries via other channels than HBO (Sky Atlantic in the UK, I would imagine). Adding non-US detail to the article would be much appreciated. Anna (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual articles for each episode

Seeing as how extremely popular this show has become, I think it's justified that each of the eight episodes get their own articles, which cast listings, plot summary, production details and critical reception. Anyone else agree? --The monkeyhate (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nope. I think the episode table on this article page is sufficient for now and there will be little worth expanding at this time beyond those plot summaries since the other information is generally the same. I think the policy against content forking should prevent this expansion of articles because at this time the material in each article will be largely redundant--copying the same production information, cast, and plot summaries already at the parent article, contra WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The critical reception for each episode would be more effective at the parent article level given the show's complex narrative arc and that a lot of the extant critical reception is for the series as a whole. Further, we ought not get into a minutiae of an episode's symbol analysis since again, that kind of material would be more effectively as a whole at the parent article level. The material isn't developed or developable at this point to warrant related articles or spinoffs per WP:RELART, WP:SPINOFF. I also think that the notability guideline on derivatives articles regarding book characters/minutiae would be worth applying here--"it is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability"--while some shows that are more developed have articles for each episode, I don't think at this time such article forking will be useful or effective here, and think WP:BKD should have an application with TV shows. Maybe in the future such an idea would be warranted--that time is not now. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Throughly Thoroughly disagree with ColonelHenry. If you want to create an episode article, be bold and do it. There is plenty of commentary online to cite regarding production and reception sections of each episode. I'd say go for it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Then you can "throughly" (sic) disagree when I boldly merge any of his forking articles back into the main article per WP:CFORK and WP:BKD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You're serious? Individual episode articles do not fail WP:CFORK, and there's plenty to say on each True Detective episode. That may apply to thousands of Law and Order episodes, but not HBO's new prestige drama, which has hundreds of articles of commentary in major news sources. If The monkeyhate or another user can find the reliable sources to create an article, that is completely reasonable. You should not discourage editors from helping to expand the encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Hey, I like the show too, but I also liked Steven Bochco's Murder One (TV series) which was ABC's "new prestige drama" at one point and went on for two seasons (with a lot more episodes) without anyone writing an episode guide. There isn't enough about individual episodes that can't already be properly addressed at the main article. Be bold and create cruft, be bold and merge cruft. Potato Potahto. Policies support both positions, reliable sources and the quantity of quality content determine otherwise. I don't think, in my estimation and after several searches through reviews, etc., there's enough at this point to warrant crufting 8 new, separate articles that are already adequately addressed and can be appropriately expanded in one place where it is already for the time being. Fan-sites and blogs don't count and there's only so much a TV critic will put in an 800-word column on what's new and hip in TV. When people write books and journal articles analyzing the episodes beyond some TV-beat reporter's recap of an episode I'll be monkeyhate's cheerleader. So, for the time being...yes, I am serious. "Merge that shit" will be my mantra.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • And pop-culture editors pushing out cruft on their favourite TV shows aren't expanding the encyclopaedia, they're creating a fanguide...nothing more. Wikipedia isn't IMDb. If monkeyhate spent his time turning Monkey or Hatred into an FA, that would be expanding and improving the encyclopaedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Pretty much everything ColonelHenry said about possible sources is wrong. There WAS extensive analysis of every episode posted by significant sources (NOT blogs, NOT fansites, and NOT mere recaps). His response was irrational and ignorant. I hope nobody took it seriously. --SubSeven (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. Thanks for the insult. When there are books and scholarly journal articles, go right ahead...until then, all I seem to find is newspaper television columnists and bloggers with next-day recaps, of the first 20 google hits, 60% are not acceptable under WP:RS or WP:BLOGS, and the rest are either reddit, Wikipedia, HBO, or amazon.com saying it's available on DVD and Blu-Ray, and two (from The New Yorker and The Atlantic) that address the series as a whole. Thus I'm still ready to merge fancruft.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you're just a big ol' Wikipedia bully, aren't ya? That's twice you've threatened to merge an article without even reading it or looking at the sources. How about this, if you merge a properly sourced episode article for True Detective that establishes the episode's notability, I'll undo the merge. That sound like a plan? --SubSeven (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have articles for each season and possibly for each episode, assuming someone is willing to flesh out the individual articles so that they include plot and reception sections (with ratings and critical reception info). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

True Detective Episode Wikipedia Page

I think it would work out best if we made a Wikipedia page for all the True Detective episodes.--Einsteinbomb (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Further Influences

This series also bears some resemblance to the 2011 film, Texas Killing Fields, about two detectives trying to solve a series of murders of young girls in the creepy bayou region between Houston and Galveston. The 2015 book, Deliver Us, was also based on these murders, but it is unclear if the film makers used these crimes as source materials. Kundera707 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The first season is clearly influenced by the McMartin Preschool incident and the documentary film Paradise Lost. Can this be added to the influences section? Or am I off my rocker... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.181.240.195 (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that discusses this and then it can be added. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The writer Ben Lawrence isn't the football player, unsurprisingly. I have removed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.162.12.14 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Season articles

The main article is getting pretty large, and I feel there's enough content for season articles to be created. I've made a draft for a season 1 article in my sandbox (User:Drovethrughosts/sandbox). Since TD is an anthology, most content is going to be very season-specific and I'm assuming the article will expand futhur with content regarding season 2. To break it down, the changes would/could be:

• The conception section could be moved to the season article, but a trimmed version would stay in the main article.
• The cast and crew info moved to the season article, and only a list of characters stays in the main article.
• Opening sequence section could also be moved to the season article since it's season 1 specific, but a trimmed version could stay in the main article.
• I've used the expanded version of the critical response section (before it was trimmed several months ago) for the season article, while the (newly) trimmed version stays in the main article.
• The table for the accolades is moved to the season article (because it contains all awards), while the shorter, prose version (which only lists major awards) stays in the main article.
• I've created a more detailed subsection for its viewership for the season article.
• Themes and influences could be moved (because it's only specific to season 1), but, a trimmed version could stay in the main article.
• The episode list would get moved to the season article, but a transluded version would remain in the list of episodes article (see List of Game of Thrones episodes if you're not aware of what that means).

Thoughts? Suggestions? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think there should be articles for each season, and possibly even for individual episodes (each one gets a lot of press coverage). @Drovethrughosts: Knowing your work, I strongly support your efforts here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has gone ahead and created the articles (True Detective (season 1), True Detective (season 2)). They're definitely looking great, however, like I said above, some content from the main article needs to be trimmed now. Pinging relevant editors: @Another Believer:, @Captain Assassin!:, @DAP388: and @Rhain1999:. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article has a lot of fat that needs to be trimmed. Here are some of my own suggestions:

• • The accolades section actually has more than enough content to warrant its own separate page. A simple paragraph or two summarizing the major awards and the number of awards should suffice for the main article. I created a draft for this a while back. Feel free to add to it!
  • I agree that content relevant to a specific season should be removed. That includes the opening sequence section (unless more information about season 2's opening title is released) as well as information pertaining to the supporting cast. I think the main article should only touch on the principal cast. The intro, while not now necessarily, will eventually need to be more concise as the show unfolds in the future.
  • To me, the conception section is important in showing readers how the series came to be. I'll see if I can polish that section up a bit, but I feel like a lot of that content merits staying on the main article. Ditto to the themes section as there is a lot of coverage on the topic, although I do think there is more than enough room for tidying in prose and content.

Momentarily working on getting the season 1 article to GA quality, but I will see what I can do in helping out with the main article. —DAP388 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Great work DAP388! As for the main article trims, I'm all for cutting the recurring cast and just listing the primary cast. What about the casting, should it stay, or just be housed in the season articles? Basically, should the cast section for the main article just be a simple list? Also, I restored the article's original, more lengthier reception section in my sandbox, do you feel this should be used for the season article? I also think the Themes and influences section would need a trim. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think prose would be better for the main article. Perhaps a little polishing, specifically for season one, would suffice, as it doesn't need to be as comprehensive compared to the season articles. Just a concise summary will do. The season two cast section is about as concise as it can get to me. I kind of see what you mean about the themes section; a trim would be fine, or remove it all together as content analyzing themes isn't necessary unless the article is FA quality.

I was looking to bulk up the reviews section in the season one page, so feel free to add that content from your sandbox and I will make the finishing touches once added. :) —DAP388 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed the season one cast section here. I eliminated the bullet points, converting it to prose (with some minor changes, although improvements probably could be made). I cut the bulk of recurring cast, except for two (Dunn and Daddario), who are both are notable and are cited. What do you think?

What does this mean?

"Pizzolatto hired fellow novelist Scott Lasser to help break stories for the second half of the season." What does this mean? Is it a term of art? If so, it should be linked or explained. I don't have a clue what this means. --71.55.229.47 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to read "to help develop and write stories". Is that more clear? I originally used "break" because that's what the source says. To "break" a story is like creating an outline or a basic idea of what the story would be. But yes, since that phrase is an idiom, it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing it out. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. It's a close one. Opposers make a good argument that the magazine has long term significance, but there's just enough consensus from supporters that the TV series is overwhelmingly what is sought at this title, and hence it's primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• True Detective (TV series) → True Detective
• True Detective → True Detective (disambiguation)

– The TV show is absolutely the primary topic. I'm actually doubtful the dab page is needed, because the essay isn't notable at all in comparison to the other two subjects. Unreal7 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support the move. Seems really obvious. Though the DAB page should be kept as it meets the criteria with 3 entries meeting MOS:DAB. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support--Dixtosa (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd never heard of the TV series. The magazine is historic, and lends its name to the TV show. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose fails second requirement to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per previous RM, per WP:RECENT and per Google Books and per the fact that the TV series is named after the magazine. Speaking of the magazine, it isn't clear from page history how it got moved out of primary topic to make way for the dab, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Detective agreed on keeping the dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 97.9% of the page views shows that this is the topic readers are looking for. While it doesn't predominate in a Google Books search, it does on Google News ([2] vs. [3]) and the stats make it clear what readers are looking for when they search for "True Detective".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've stricken my support; I rewrote the magazine's article with two new sources and it looks like it has considerable long-term significance. I'm shifting to oppose, as the pageviews are overwhelming.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, un-striking. The show also has long-term significance and is far and away what readers are looking for. In the current arrangement, we're sending virtually all our readers to dead end.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the primary topic when considered historically and long-term significance cannot be determined yet even though the older magazine has endured in memory due to its cover art and "true-crime" stories. (at least, that's how I heard of it and only know of the television series in passing) Opencooper (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Secondarywaltz and IIO. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support due to OVERWHELMING gap in page views which supersedes the 'historical significance' criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (note that the policy states that both criteria do not have to necessarily be met to establish a primary topic). Also, in this case, we have years of stats which we can use to reliably predict that this trend of the two articles' traffic will not change as time goes on (the recentism/historical argument). The traffic received by True Detective (magazine) is a trickle, at best, and there is no indication this will change. The TV series is a show that has recently aired and is boosted by that, yes. But for a couple of examples, compare to two past shows on the same network, Oz (TV series) and Six Feet Under (TV series). Despite their being off the air for over 10 years, and not having been as popular as True Detective to begin with, they still get over 40x as many daily page views as True Detective (magazine). I see several oppose arguments here that actually contradict the policy. 1) Both main criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC do NOT have to be met (which of course is the case - if not, primary topics could never be established in favor of a newer entry until some amount of time had elapsed, which the policy might as well state explicitly) , 2) WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is not an argument for/against a primary topic candidate, and 3) 'who had the name first' is not an argument for/against a primary topic candidate. That is all right there in the policy. Please read the policy and apply it in a way which serves the user, which is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. --SubSeven (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per SubSeven. Historical importance matters, yes, but it might yet be true that the TV show was more influential than the long-lived magazine. Longevity is not everything; a novel is only released once but can have huge long-term notability, more so than a magazine. Same with a TV Series. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This looks like another page where Amakuru moved the article but not the talk page. They ought to be moved together, and that is the default action for a move. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: apologies again. The problem is that if the target talk page has a nontrivial history (i.e. a non-administrator would not be able to move to that talk page location), then the talk page doesn't move with the article even if you tick the box to say move it. The target talk page has to be deleted first, and separately, just as an article would be. I'm quite new as an admin, and this problem never arose when I used to move pages in my non-admin days, because if the talk page can't be moved, then most likely the article can't be either. I will make sure to keep an eye on this more in future. I've now moved this talk page as required, anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:True Detective/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am starting a GA Review for this article. It is truly *massive* so please be patient with me as I work my way through all the various sections and parameters. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be going through the various sections in order and then filling out the GA Criteria towards the end of my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Clear, easy to read, sticks to the verifiable facts. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Reference #34 is from Chicago Trubune and should probably be web-archived. Please check Reference #59 - looks like the server might be down?Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

   I see that Ref #34 has a web-archive link anyway & #59 seems to be working now - never mind. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Yes. I fixed those sources. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - all looks good to go. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Looks good so far but want to read bit more to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable content. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Hard to get images from media productions that are held so tightly by their corporate owners - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @AffeL: Doing one more readthrough to see if I missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA. Going forward, to me possible future improvements would include finding CC-BY-SA or PD images for the article - of the actors, any locales that were used, etc. I do understand how difficult it is getting images for a show that is under copyright etc, but anyway....if possible, more images would be my wish for the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Looks fine - lays out who has starred in the series, its creator/writing/production team, the network, the general timeline of its development - and so gives the notability claims - nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Production

Good research, timeline is well-developed (no big gaps - yay), prose & grammar are correct. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast & crew

Looks good. Well-written, good research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Episodes

Both Season 1 and Season 2: good writing, research. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response, Accolades, Ratings
The only problem I see in this general section is the Ratings sub-section is completely unsourced. This section will have to be referenced before I can finish up the Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The ratings sub section is now sourced and archived. - AffeL (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why I thought that Ratings was unsourced - in the course of my Review maybe I was looking at an old/outdated version?...sheesh, I have no idea. Anyway, it's good to go now. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you where right. The ratings sub-section was unsourced. I just sourced and archived it couple of hours ago. - AffeL (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok... it's just that when I look at the edit history it's showing your last edit as being on Feb 25th. Maybe something to do with the page cache? Anyway, it's fixed - yay! Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ratings section (and its edit history) is actually located at {{True Detective ratings}}. – Rhain ☔ 06:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more readthroughs

I will give this article a few more deep reads to see what I might have missed previously. The major issue at this point is the unreferenced "Ratings" subsection. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)