Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this shortly. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Specific notes
- "Running 62 minutes long" Not sure about that, it's a little too specific, try "Running an hour long..."
- disagree - exact is good - and a standard convention for films/TV shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- "paving over the work done by director" What do you mean by that exactly?
- Hand could do with an explanation in the article, not sure it's used in American (I'm English though, so I wouldn't really know). At least, in the lede, expand it to Hand of the King.
- The caption of the photo could do with some concision and a link to Bean.
- "his old friend Ned that" 2 commas needed.
- "her husband Jon was" 2 commas needed.
- "and executive produce" and be executuve producers to
- "direct the pilot episode, that was shot between" which was...
- "original pilot that did not return for the series" who did...
- Link needed to Doune Castle.
- Kingdom of Heaven needs a link.
- The sentence after the Kingdom of Heaven needs a reference. As does the one after it.
- First sentence of Ratings needs a ref.
- "the following week climbed the total viewership" That doesn't make sense.
- "in United Kingdom" in the UK
- The HitFix review needs quote marks.
- "show is "feast for the eyes"" a "feast..."
- The last sentence is rather clunky.
- General notes
- Could the lede be expanded a little bit? The paragraphs feel a bit bare as if they need a bit of beefing up?
- In "The original pilot" section, the people appearing that are written in list-form should be put in prose.
- The Writing section needs a lot more references and the one reference it does have is unreliable and should be removed (it's a fansite).
- A lot of the references are unreliable I'm afraid... Out of 15, 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. With so many iffy refs, it makes the content kind of questionable which is why I'm going to have to fail this, because it needs a rewrite essentially.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
- Quite a few ref issues. covered above.
- a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): (focused):
- Could do with a little beefing up.
- a (major aspects): (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Perfic'.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Perfic'.
- 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): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Perfic'.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: