Talk:The Wolf and the Lion

The Wolf and the Lion has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Wolf and the Lion is part of the Game of Thrones (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 29, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
April 19, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Song of Ice and Fire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.[reply]

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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):
Catelyn and her entourage arrive at the Eyrie, ruled by Lord Jon Arryn's widow, Lysa (Kate Dickie), Catelyn's sister, but when she finally meets her sister after five years, Lysa is mentally unstable and frightened of the Lannisters' power. Very poor and unclear prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Lysa prepares to render judgment on Tyrion as an accomplice for her husband's murder "accomplice in her husband's murder"?

At Winterfell, Theon (Alfie Allen) grows more jealous of Tyrion when his favorite prostitute Ros (Esmé Bianco), taunts him that she prefers Tyrion as he is a better lover and his family is richer compared to Theon due his position in the Stark household. Really, this is semi-literate, please take it away to get it copy-edited by someone who can write good plain English, the take it to peer review before renominating.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The first criterion of WP:WIAGA is that articles are "reasonably well written". This nomination clearly fails as it appears to have been written by someone with little or no command of plain English. Not listed. WP:GAN is not a place to teach basic literacy skills. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wolf and the Lion/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right let's go then. Queries below. I'll copyedit as I go and revert me if my change guffs the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot centers in King's Landing and Lord Eddard Stark's investigations regarding the death of the previous Hand. ...aaargh. The plot doesn't centre in a location. I'd reword something like, "With much of the story taking place in King's Landing, the plot focusses on Lord Eddard Stark's investigations into the death of the previous Hand." or something like it.

Done.

'' In the city, the Tourney of the Hand comes to an end while the various factions that plot for power come to light. --> " In the city, the Tourney of the Hand comes to an end while the various factions that plot for power are revealed." (?)

Done.

~~I'd at least put some out of universe material in the lead - viewing figures, reception, something.~~

Put two sentences in for now. Will see about adding more.

Yeah, looking better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any embellishment that can be gleaned and added to the Writing section would be a big big plus. Any musings of GRRM anywhere, anything.

first sentence in Filming locations needs a citation.

..... ~~fight outside Littlefinger's brothel was staged at the Mesquita Square in Mdina~~ ~~- is the last place a town? Is it spelt correctly and can it be linked?~~

Done, but still probably needs a cite.

but because the landscape base plates were being shot in Ireland, using Meteora resulted a better option - why? Is it discussed anywhere?

~~As the action takes off,..~~ ~~- a tad colloquial to my ears - would prefer "As the action gains pace/gains momentum/picks up".... or somesuch....~~

Rephrased.

~~The episode's ratings in its premiere airing raised to 2.58 million viewers~~ ~~- I think of "raise" as a transitive active verb, in which case it comes over as odd here. I'd use "rose", "grew", "increased" or even "swelled".....~~

Rephrased.

Other aspects of the show that were highlighted by the critics were the effectiveness of the action scenes and the visuals (especially the views of the Eyrie and its sky cells, and the look of the dragon skulls). ~~- I'd remove the parentheses and replace with a comma after "visuals"~~. Also needs a cite. I did it myself - it does look a bit lonely there, can it be expanded or fleshed out a bit?

~~"Dedication" looks odd being a level 2 header...I think I'd make it a level 3 header and the last subsection of the "Production" section.~~

Done.

~~ref 10 needs formatting~~

blogs aren't great refs but are ok for some mundane material.

Anyway, any questions, just ask. GA is definitely achievable here.. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll try to address these issues over the holidays. Sandstein 09:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

- ~~four tags need doing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

- more commentary would be good but I think we have minimum to pass. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- ~~fixing the four ^{[citation needed]} tags is a minimum.~~ Extra info is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the four {{cn}} tags have been dealt with: three were sourcable, one was not and so that tidbit was removed. I can source Shane's Castle as a location, but not individual scenes which were shot there. I also added an overall plot intro, like I've done for the other episodes in the series, based on other GA reviewer feedback. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passed then. Now for another episode......Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Westeros.org has been contested: See Oathkeeper

The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?

The conversation about Westeros.org as a source has proceeded to an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. (This article has one.[1]) The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wolf and the Lion. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110111073319/http://www.thisisguernsey.com:80/2011/01/04/swine-flu-kills-guernsey-animal-trainer/ to http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/01/04/swine-flu-kills-guernsey-animal-trainer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wolf and the Lion. 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:

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) 01:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wolf and the Lion. 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/20110824201731/http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/1/13/the-artisans-buster-reeves.html to http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/2011/1/13/the-artisans-buster-reeves.html

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) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]