Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --Gen. Quon (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~I would link "first season" to a first season article~~

~~I don't think it's really necessary to have citations in the lead, since it's basically a summary. I'd move Ref. No 1 down to the "Production" section~~

I would change "The episode's action revolves around the Stark's reactions to Eddard Stark's death: Sansa taken hostage, Arya fleeing in disguise, Robb and Catelyn leading an army against the Lannisters, and Jon Snow struggling with his divided loyalty." into "The episode's action revolves around the Stark's reactions to Eddard Stark's death: Sansa is taken hostage, Arya flees in disguise, Robb and Catelyn lead an army against the Lannisters, and Jon Snow struggles with his divided loyalty."

~~Expand the lead a little bit. You don't mention any of the awards the episode won.~~

~~Also, is there a citation for guest stars? If so, maybe you could cite them.~~

~~I would merge "Airdates" and "Ratings" into one section, since they are very similar.~~
These have been addressed, but the citations for guest stars are either primary (the episode credits themselves, and I don't have the DVDs yet) or unreliable (e.g. IMDB). Do we want unreliable (yet uncontroversial) citations, or none? I'm willing to do either. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Cite (from a reliable source) when the episode aired in the US.~~

~~Citation No. 3 is not reliable, as TV.com can be edited by anyone.~~

~~Cite how you know "Fire and Blood" was the most watched episode of the season.~~

Your Nielsen information is a bit skewed. The rating share isn't a number in millions, but rather a percent. It should read: ""Fire and Blood" was the most watched episode of the season. The episode was viewed by an estimated 3.041 million viewers and received a 1.4 share among adults between the ages of 18 and 49. This means that it was seen by 1.4% of all 18–49 years olds at the time of the broadcast."
These have been addressed. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~Production needs to be significantly expanded~~
I've added a good sized, well-referenced paragraph about the dragons, which were the major ingredient in the VFX nomination and really the only significant element which received new attention only for this episode. I can copy content from other articles in the first season about filming locations and such, but I didn't see any commentary uniquely about this episode. It can be done, but should it? Let me know if you think I've put enough new stuff in, or, if not, what else you'd like to see.
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):
~~Explain in the caption space why the picture is important to the episode.~~
Done, but I am not married to my current caption--I think it addresses what you asked, but it could still probably be improved, although precisely how is escaping me at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Super! I look forward to your feedback. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just weighing in here: I think the article fails criteria 3, in that its production section is very small. I know there's more content out there, considering it was such a large and important episode to the series. It should thus be expanded (I wouldn't blame GenQuon if he wanted to fail this review and give you time to expand; GAN is not a peer review after all). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To name just a few: [1] [2] Ruby 2010/2013 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll err on the side of being nice and give seven days to expand the production section. If it doesn't improve, I will fail it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, GA is a peer review process, in that it's essentially a one-on-one editorial assessment, with the goal to improve encyclopedic content. It's neither a rubber-stamp nor an excuse to tear others' efforts down, but a structured opportunity to help an editor reach a well-define measure of an article's quality. And yes, I will be expanding the production section, along with incorporating all the rest of the feedback, within the next week. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will await your edits.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as of now, I think the content is sufficiently improved that I need more input from you to address the issues you've raised that I am unsure have been satisfactorily dealt with. I'll ping you on your talk page too. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave it all a quick run-through. The edits look excellent. I will take a closer look tomorrow when I have some more time. Also, as for the guest stars et al citations, if you can't find anything, that's OK, I thought there might be an article somewhere out there that mentioned them. One thing you could do is cite the episode itself, as that would be a primary source and should pass. If not, no big deal.--Gen. Quon (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I gave it a thorough run-through again and, after a few edits, it all looks good. I pass this article!--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.