Talk:Lord Snow/GA1

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: Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artical is practicly done for GA, but their are some issues.

The lead is weak. Add more info about production and reception.
Add Alt to the images

Thats pretty simple. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a quite a lot of uncited information, including much of the production section and in sentences such as "King Robert remembering with the members of his Kingsguard their first killings, and Eddard finding out the situation of the finances of the kingdom in his first session of the closed council." These should be properly referenced. Ruby2010 comment! 02:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked at all of those, addressed them, and given the entire thing a once-over for prose. Any additional comments or requested fixes? Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ruby pointed out there are some non refrenced parts from the production section that you should fix. That would be my last issue. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the parts Ruby asked about. What other parts do you want to see referenced? Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the GA nomination for the first episodes of the series, to see why It wasn't listed. This articles shares exactly the same problems with sources:
- Said the previous reviewer, about Winter Is Coming: Ref 1 is a Game of Thrones fansite, Ref 4 is a blog (despite its name), Ref 6 is the same fansite as ref 1, Ref 8 is the same blog as ref 4, Ref 9, as aforementioned, is a fansite, Ref 13 is a blogsite. Ref 14 is a blogsite and not a professional review website
- Ref 1 in both article is the same Game of Thrones fansite, Refs 2 and 7 are from the same fansite from ref 9 in Winter Is Coming, Refs 3 and 4 are from George R.R. Martin's blog. I don't see it as a problem, since he is the author of the book the series is based on, and was involving in the production of the episode, but it as a problem in the previous review(ref 4 in Winter Is Coming). Refs 6 and 9 are from another fansite, not included in Winter Is Coming.

I imagine this should be fixed, before listing it?

Maddox (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes. I just reviewed another of the articals of the show and they have the same problem of unreliable sources. It is important that you fix it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a specific list of how those sources are used to support "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" That is, if you look at WIAGA, there's no requirement that every source be "not a fansite". I didn't contest this in the previous GA review because the reviewer failed it out of hand without any dialogue. I am contesting it now, since there is ample precedent for referencing high-quality fansites such as The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 in articles on fictional topics. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to the article you pointed out, this specific fanstte was seen by JMS himself as a high-quality fansite about the series he created. I have virtually zero experience with wp.en GA process, but I constantly participate in wp.pt equivalent process ("escolha dos artigos bons", a voting process based on pretty much the same criteria) and there, when using a fansite or even a blog, we usually point out what makes it notable and reliable, and not merely fancruft material. Superman Thru the Ages, for instance, was pointed by a brazilian website as the best website about Superman, and was used in more than one GA about the character there.

That said, I would suggest you to, not wanting or not having others sources as an alternative, point how a fansite with no editorial oversight process is reliable enough to production details. I believe Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is wp.en equivalente to what we use in wp.pt for discussion on that matter. Maddox (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRRM commented on at least two of the "fan sites" here, but you're missing the point: not every source has to be "reliable" for an article to reach GA. Only contested points need independent RS; for many uncontested topics, SPS are fine. There obviously must be enough RS to demonstrate notability, but once that threshold is reached, "unreliable" sources can be used for uncontested matters--and unless anyone is arguing that the facts are wrong, none of these matters is contested. See my quote from WP:WIAGA, above. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got your point. The criteria we use in wp.pt are slightly different, that's why I pointed the fansite stuff. That said, I would only suggest you expand the lead section with some lines explaining why the critical reception was mixed. Something like "while the plot was praised, some critics felt the need to introduce new characters hurt the series". Maddox (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I watched the references and they seem pretty accurate, I still have a concern for not a blog which looks strange to me. Prove me wrong and I be happy to pass the article. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 05:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Not a blog" is Mr. Martin's own LiveJournal site. It's referenced at his official page, here, third link (shield icon) from the top left. Yes, it looks weird, but he does use it to post a bunch of things about the series. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll get to work on the other one. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2011 (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.