Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)

Let's try to keep this article balanced

Obviously the show is going to be divisive because of it's widespread & cultural appeal, and because of strong fan reactions to a major character's story arc last week. I sat up and read about 20 reviews last night, and I am going to try and read more of the sources here when I have time. Several of the ones posted here by "Starship.paint" on May 20, were not actual 'reviews,' but were early 'recaps' and 'blog-style debates,' where random negative quotes appeared to be "cherry picked." The more positive quotes from actual reviews appeared to be glossed over. So, I replaced some recaps / blog-debates with the actual reviews (The New York Times, for example), and added quotes from more reputable sources. Also, the often criticized Rotten Tomatoes (now owned by Warner Brothers), that is frequently, too easily sourced here by less experienced editors, should not be used as a 'singular source' for citing and balancing critical receptions. SportsEdits1 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Restored reviews from Chicago Sun Times, New York Times, TV Guide, A.V. Club. SportsEdits1 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SportsEdits1 - please add a source when you restore your AV Club review. starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

While "bittersweet" is a finely balanced word in itself and lots of people are saying it (because lots of people are saying it), I don't think it helps anything here to repeat it four times. I suggest we choose one critic to state the obvious. I don't have a preference, but will probably delete the three that aren't first before anyone who cares picks one (don't worry, there are tons of suitable candidates left in the wild). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted a summary of a review that was based around an arbitrary snippet from the headline. Literally the only part of the article the reviewer didn't write, and the only part we explictly attributed to her. It should go without saying, but be mindful of that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, maybe she did write it somewhere beyond the two paragraphs people can read without a subscription. Not that these kinds of source are illegal or anything, but given the heaps and heaps of freely-readable stuff on this topic, there's really no urgent need for them. Stick to what's verifiable, especially when others might wonder if the "cherry-picked" words originally meant what the editor used them to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Before my edit of today, we have 9 reviews: Chicago Sun-Times (+), The Guardian (+), Rolling Stone (+), The Washington Post (+), The New York Times (James Poniewozik is not rated), IGN (+), The A.V. Club (+), Newsday (-), USA Today (-). Rotten Tomatoes rated 6/8 of them as positive, and 1 was not rated. Since the approval rating by critics was around 50%, the balance is extremely off here. Clearly, more negative reviews need to be added. Also, aparat from the Guardian, all the rest of the reviews are from American sources. We need more global views. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we can do. Remove IGN and The New York Times' James Poniewozik for not being top critics on RT. Change the Washington Post's positive review to a negative one by Alyssa Rosenberg (top critic). Add top critic global reviews, both positive, from Australia's The Age and UK's BBC. Add more negative top critic reviews for balance: Canada's Globe and Mail, America's The Atlantic and Detroit Free Press. starship.paint (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Result: 6 positive top critics - Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, The A.V. Club (USA), The Age (Australia), BBC, The Guardian (UK). 6 negative top critics: Newsday, USA Today, Atlantic, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press (USA), Globe and Mail (Canada). starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If the "positive" reviews praise more things than the "negative", they should get more space and citations simply for having more to tell us. And vice versa. Be careful not to just add six variations of "the writing felt rushed" or "Peter Dinklage was superb" when one would say as much. There's more to writing than numbers, believe it or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

We'll see when I add them. starship.paint (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but it sounds cool and I look forward to finding out. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

SP, it's nothing personal, but I am just going by what you posted on May 20.[1]. Some of these were recaps, and not official reviews, and you seemed to only pick out negative language, and barely picked out any wordings at all from any of the more reputable reviewers, top critics, or any positive reviews. It seems like you have a bias here WP:BIAS? You are also relying too heavily on Rotten Tomatoes (NBCUniversal, Warner Bros.) for an encyclopedia, which often misrates reviews (ex. Myles McNutt's (A.V. Club) "The Bells" review (B-, 80) counted as "rotten" when should have been "fresh" last week, among others), who have far more internet critics (who go by likes on their pages), rather than established critics. Top critics are more reputable and should carry more weight. This is also English (US) wikipedia. Your count above is also incorrect: The New York Times and The Washington Post reviews you listed as positive, they were in fact, very, very "mixed." SportsEdits1 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - that was a review from India. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. We don't have only American reviews here, there are many countries that speak English too. Rotten Tomatoes listed some reviews as fresh (positive) and rotten (negative). I'm merely following what they say. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, The A.V. Club (USA), The Age (Australia), BBC, The Guardian (UK) Newsday, USA Today, The Atlantic, Washington Post, Detroit Free Press (USA), Globe and Mail (Canada). Still biased? If you think the A.V Club is negative, you're free to find a positive one. starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The A.V. Club one was uncited and tagged, so I deleted it. Nothing for or against it, just needed a citation. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - please add one positive review for balance (seems like 5:6 now) starship.paint (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SP, my mistake about English wiki, that was meant to be struck. "The Bells" reception section also needs more balanced improvement. More balanced edits, but I would like to see you use more of the actual quotes, than breaking them down so much. It almost "sounds like" the reader is being mislead. One can always add a source if one gets left off by mistake than just removing the whole quote. Too many people ripping down sourced content on this article. But question: how did you justify removing The New York Times review? SportsEdits1 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, no. No artificial balance. Thank you. See the subsection below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - well The New York Times one wasn't listed in RT so I have no indication if that person is a top critic. Do you want to restore it? Since there is a space now, we could. RE: The Bells... that's a separate issue for that talk page. starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have nice things. Even if they come from someone primarily butthurt about not getting the story he wants, praise for cinematography and scoring is still valid criticism, I think. Are we splitting everyone up into two camps for counting's sake and don't want to blur any lines? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

If that article was primarily positive, or evenly mixed, we could have nice things. He said 2 nice things and 12 troublesome ones, then we mention the 2 nice ones? starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned two nice ones. You mentioned however many of the troublesome ones you apparently wanted to. That is balance. Without it, how is anyone supposed to learn this episode contained a cool shot and some interesting ambience? Without watching it or surfing the web, I mean. How an individual source for an article is biased shouldn't influence the leanings of the whole article (or section). We're only meant to mirror their facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

@SP, sorry, wasn't trying to get down on you, or anyone. It sounds much better. I originally added A.V. Club with IGN because those are two top "internet critics." I may take out Newsday? Also, if you use other articles as a template, a lot of controversial media subjects are organized with the positive review, mixed reviews, then negative reviews, respectively clumped together. SportsEdits1 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - please please cite your AV Club. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok. Do you think The Age, Globe and Mail, or The Atlantic should stay? Which one is more reputable? SportsEdits1 (talk)

@SportsEdits1: - Why can't all of them stay? Age is Australian and top critic on RT, Globe and Mail is Canadian and top critic on RT. Atlantic is top critic on RT and is a prestigious publication. starship.paint (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - the old WaPo review, now back in the article, says "swelling imagery". starship.paint (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're telling me this. Is this supposed to adequately convey the cool dragon shot or interesting soundtrack choice? If so, it doesn't come close. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

• @SportsEdits1: - based on the text at present, I'm counting 7 positive reviews and 6 negative ones. 1 positive one should be on the chopping block then? Rolling Stone? Or.... I could add Slate, as a negative review. 7/7 or 6/6? [2] top review on RT. starship.paint (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If "eh" counts as positive, I suggest chopping the Detroit Free Press review. If she doesn't care enough to form an opinion, we shouldn't care to share her apathy and indifference. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

I've done so many edits I've probably exceeded 3RR, so I won't be reverting this. But what's grrrr as an edit summary SportsEdits1?? If anyone finds out where I've exceeded 3RR, ping me. I'll self-revert in my next edit to Wikipedia (if I'm offline, I'm offline). I totally agree with InedibleHulk on this, a synopsis (after showing us a nightmare for eight seasons, ''Game of Thrones'' finally dares to dream of spring) is not a review ("quiet, and quietly lovely, affair"). starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• @InedibleHulk:@Starship.paint: You two need to chill. *lol* Thanks everyone though. I'll change it, but if the critics choose the words "bittersweet" that's their prerogative... but that is also reference from George R.R. Martin. He stated years ago that he was planning to make his ending (in the last book "A Dream of Spring") "bittersweet." Also, there is nothing in stone to say the reviews have to be numerically perfect. And again, I we shouldn't use RT as a primary source for consensus. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course he said it years ago. The attribution, like the word, has been used to death since. A thousand writers can make the same "clever" allusion, and it still won't bear repeating a thousand times. The first paragraph got to it first, that's good enough for people who wondered if he was lying to know he wasn't. Find me something in life that isn't bittersweet, though. It's not particular to or defining of this episode, just often associated with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

@SportsEdits1: - if we’re not using RT as a guide for what the critics are saying, then what shall we use? Shall I add 10 negative reviews based on some arbitrary view in my mind? starship.paint (talk)

@Starship.paint: It's very late here, but thanks for your help BTW. Some editors just use RT to cut corners, and not actually read the sources is all I really meant. SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:@Starship.paint: Oh I wasn't grring at you, just my browser locking up having to backpage when two or more people are submitting edits at the same time. I rather think the "dream of spring" reference in the Rolling Stone article sounds better. SportsEdits1 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That was probably one of us, anyway, so "grrr" to the whole edit conflict system! The line sounds good enough, sure, but when read as encyclopedic text, it rings a bit hollow. Ask a hundred people what a dream of spring means to them, you'll get a few who recognize it as a book they haven't read, but the rest will be all over the board. Since the episode doesn't feature grass, lemons, mosquitoes, rabbits, hockey or [insert your own wilder dream], we shouldn't accidentally imply it does. Stick to plain English here, I say, save the highbrow stuff for fairy tales and concept albums. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, there should definitely be something in the section about Jon and Daenerys's endings. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked to see what reviewers are stating about Drogon, but it's likely that a bit on Drogon should also be added. I know that people have had a lot to state about him burning the throne. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hugh Montgomery of BBC talked about Jon/Sansa/Arya as a whole. provides an efficient, if disappointingly uncontroversial, ending. It's already in this Wiki article. As for Dany, I only remember this source saying something. [3]. starship.paint (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The "provides an efficient, if disappointingly uncontroversial, ending" piece is vague. And as for Daenerys, there was also this piece that InedibleHulk removed. You added it, right? If it's the reviewer stating that, I don't see an issue with including that piece. Although it's best to generally stick to sources that focus on the episode, the sources don't have to be solely about the episode for us to include their opinion on an aspect of the episode. Either way, Googling "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys" or "The Iron Throne episode Daenerys death" brings up enough material, such as this "Game of Thrones Series Finale Recap: Broken" source from Vulture. The source addresses Jon's fate and other material as well. Like I stated below, the recap pieces are also reviewing the episode. I don't see a problem with you adding them, as long as we don't go overboard with them. We shouldn't go overboard with anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, the Daily Telegraph piece was the sole one I didn't add (before SportsEdits1 added anything). I don't know who added it, and I can't read the Telegraph article. I personally would not have quoted the title. starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what InedibleHulk stated about sources we have to pay for, see WP:PAYWALL. He has a point about trying to keep to sources we don't have to pay for, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well okay. I agree. Let's use open sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Everyone's talking about" Drogon! We know he burned the throne, but why not Jon? We know he spread his dark wings for momma, but how did the Internet get it twisted? And of course, even the "mainstream media" is abuzz with morbid speculation about the missing white woman's body. Can Eastern medicine still save her? Will she go to waste in Old Valyria or will he eat her like a goat? Emilia Clarke is quoted as laughing in The New York Times when she strongly suggests he eats her in Hawaii. But was she joking? Nervous? Mad?!?

Something to chew on, anyway. The dragon does have three heads, as "they" say, and it does nobody any good to read about two without the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

False balance

SportsEdits1, you need to stop adding false balance to this article. Our reception sections are not for you to artificially balance because you don't like the reception, including the Rotten Tomatoes rating. With this edit, we can see Dcfc1988 removing the following WP:Editorializing piece from you: " 'The Iron Throne' received mainly favorable to semi-favorable initial reviews from top critics. Early fan reception, and the response from internet critics were mixed." That piece was not sourced in the least. And I don't know why you thought your "as predicted before the finale's airing, the initial reactions to the final episode were divisive" piece sourced to this source was appropriate. With this edit, we can see Templeowls17 reverting you, stating, "undoing previous editor; cited a desire for 'balance' but reception sections are not meant to be balanced. They are meant to be informative, and this user simply shifted negative reviews to the last paragraph and created 4 positive paragraphs. Hardly reflective of an episode that is currently 48% on RT." Templeowls17 is absolutely correct. And I was going to revert you once I logged back on, but I was glad to see that Templeowls17 had reverted you. WP:Due weight is about giving most of our weight to what the majority of reliable sources state on a topic. It's not about what being neutral means in common discourse. And review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes can help assess critical consensus. But looking for sources that specifically report on the reception to this episode are better. For example, there are some reliable sources that state that this episode received mixed reviews. You mentioned Starship.paint adding recaps? And? Those recaps are also reviewing the episode, offering opinions on how things played out.

You speak of the Rotten Tomatoes top critics or maybe some other top critics based on your personal opinion; do see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response, especially the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" section. Yes, this is not a film article, but what MOS:FILM states about the Rotten Tomatoes top critics is still valid. Going by what is stated there, I don't see why you are prioritizing the Rotten Tomatoes top critics or any top critics. For example, that MOS:FILM section states, " 'Top Critics' scores are inconsistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how a film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view. 'Top Critics' scores may not be notable. The general 'All Critics' score is more widely reported than the 'Top Critics' score, and is the statistic for which Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable."

I am tempted to revert back to Starship.paint's original setup, right before your edits to the section. Reverting to the WP:Status quo while editors discuss and achieve WP:Consensus on this matter is fine. But I'll leave it as is for now. Instead, I'm going to go ahead and alert Talk:Game of Thrones, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to this matter for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, the four of us (including Starship.paint) just "worked together" for the last 3 hours to improve this article, using "talk." This works better than simply "hammering policy" I find. False Balance? I simply used the word balance as an expression to keep things more "objective," and hopefully to curtail any edit-warring. Apparently, there has been a lot of backlash between fans over a character arc. Many of the official reviews had not been published yet three days ago. And "templeowls17" did "rush to judgement" reverting, in fact, and removed several sources as stated (New York Times, A.V. Club, Washington Post, etc.) without using talk, article history, and making little contributions. Seems like we got it handled already. SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint taking the time to try to appease you does not mean that what you were/are doing was/is correct. It's not, per what I stated above. And this comment by Starship.paint speaks volumes; it echoes what I stated. We are not supposed to arbitrarily balance reception sections. I don't see that you edited objectively at all. You suggested that Starship.paint has a bias toward the negative side of the reception. Well, it's clear to me that you have a bias toward the positive side of the reception. Objective would be looking for sources that summarize the reception and not adding unsourced editorializing such as "received mainly favorable to semi-favorable initial reviews from top critics." And the backlash has been from both critics and fans, and not just over one character. Season 8 of this series is the worst-reviewed season, especially its last two episodes. That's just the way it is. The drastic Rotten Tomatoes drop is clear as day at Game of Thrones#Critical response. We do not need you trying to counter any of this. Templeowls17 did not rush to judgment; Templeowls17 was absolutely right. And if you cannot see why you are wrong, which seems to be the case, that's a problem. All you had to do was retain your "positive commentary" pieces without reverting back to your problematic version. I would have retained your pieces (except for the editorializing, of course) while reverting back to Starship.paint's version. Yes, your editorializing is gone, but that TV Guide piece should not be the first piece in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with Flyer22. After reading the critical response section, it feels too positive, like most of the negative is being swiftly countered. I can't quite put my finger on how I'd remedy that, but a good start might be to devise a structure of three paragraphs, each with a different focus. The first would be centered on the lukewarm reception, the second on negative aspects of reception, and the third listing some of the positive aspects. The 2nd and 3rd can be flipped of course, but I tend to place the positive last when I lead with mixed. Doing this may result in a different selection of reviews. Right now, that section seems a bit unorganized. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good plan of action.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I got to say, the reception section is has an obvious PoV pushing going there. How does a section starting with On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the episode had an approval rating of 48% based on 120 reviews, and an average rating of 6.4 out of 10. have almost all of the reviewers being on how good-ish (3-4/5) the episode is. If the overall consensus is of a 48% approval rating, less than half of the ones cited here should be about the better aspects of the episode, as WP:WEIGHT (policy) clearly states. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: - if the rating is 6.4/10, you would expect 3/5 and 4/5. Not every review gave a rating. In fact the majority of reviews don't give ratings. So the 6.4/10 doesn't reflect every review. Even the Indian source (since deleted from this article) rated it 3/5 [4] when it said that the show "went out with a whimper". I suppose people have very high expectations (because of the earlier seasons). starship.paint (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the point Gonnym is making is that the overall reception trends negative, and at best, it's mixed or lukewarm. So when reading that section, we shouldn't walk away with warm fuzzies that the overall reception was more positive than negative, or that it trends positive. That's not what the overall average tells us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The 6.4 clearly contradicts the 48% approval rating (which is less than 3/5), which are the actual reviews. A clear read through the reviewers see you've masterfully cherry-picked ones that make this episode seem much more successful than it was with critics. Also, GoneIn60 maybe have phrased by words better as that is exactly what I was trying to say. --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I think by now you would have read, and realized, from below, that your second sentence shouldn't be aimed at me. I am not the sole writer of the current version of the article. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to further this editing war, especially with SportsEdits1, but will give my two cents and go on my way. Based on its current status, this reception section is not only wildly unbalanced, but its not truthful to the actual reception of this episode. Is balance even the goal in reception sections? Someone with further Manual of Style experience than myself may have more insight, but I am among the belief that RT is a great tool to help mold our reception sections. Isn't that why the RT score and consensus is at the top of every reception area? Yet this section is doing everything in its power to counteract the RT score, going as far to put a TV Guide note immediately following the RT consensus in an attempt to counter it. I have not seen this in any other reception sections, especially GoT ones. It's laughable tbh. Additionally, the first three paragraphs are entirely positive and The Atlantic review is shoved to the bottom and displays a positive reception, despite the overwhelming majority of the article being negative of the episode. Meanwhile, Top Critics like CNN, The New Yorker, Slate, Time, etc. are ignored, and reviews from Rolling Stone are cherry picked. I understand that RT should not purely dictate reception sections, but it's clear from their consensus that critical acclaim is quite low, not to mention the severely low viewer reception. On top of that, GoT RT scores are typically in the 80s to low 90s. There has only been 6 episodes out of 73 that have been below a 80 RT score. This episode is at 48%! For this section to be largely positive, is quite disingenuous and I can't help but think personal bias involved. I reverted SportsEdits1 edits in accordance with WP:BRD. I did not rush to any judgment. I reverted their edits back to the original form because they changed the entire nature of the section to conform to a positive take on the episode, while based on critical reviews, that is not accurate.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Balanced should not be what this section tries to be per WP:WEIGHT. It should give both sides, but per their actual weight. --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym and GoneIn60, yes, I think that Starship.paint's original setup is more reflective of the critical consensus (although it probably should have had a few more positive pieces). But like I stated, we should be looking at sources that report on the critical consensus in cases like this. I've seen a few reliable sources call reception to this episode mixed. This episode is not as divisive/hated as the previous episode, even though the Rotten Tomatoes scores for both episodes are currently separated by only percent. GoneIn60, I like your idea, at least for a start. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, this was my setup. No Daily Telegraph. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I wasn't counting any additional stuff that was added. I was simply stating that the previous setup was mainly the one you crafted, that it was the setup before all of the debated changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship's edit does indeed sound much more reflective of the overall reviews and Gone's idea sounds good to me as well. --Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't have any time to help implement it. Seems like there's plenty of able-bodied editors here though! --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and get something going in my sandbox, but if someone can do it more effectively (quickly), by all means. I think your three paragraph structure makes the most sense here, given the reviews.--Templeowls17 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah okay but please don't overload American sources. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look. Tried to combine some of alot of users' ideas and used @GoneIn60's 3 paragraph format (not including the RT paragraph). Let me know what you guys think and absolutely feel free to make edits.--Templeowls17 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviews of the episode proved divisive, with the majority of critics viewing the episode as lukewarm. - are we allowed to conclude that on our own...? Also, I think it needs 1 more positive review for balance. I'll add the Age. starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yea, that paragraph and the next should probably be sourced. Just thought it added structure to the "lukewarm, negative, then positive" paragraph structure. I'll try to work on it.--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost seems like the same problems as before, with all the positive reviews shoved way down at the bottom, especially with the holy aggregate at close to 50% (but 6.4 avg rating). But at least now, there seems to be more direct quotes from the actual reviews than just a few words. We could just intermix both negative and positive quotes. And wouldn't the word "mixed" be more appropriate than "lukewarm"? The latter kind of sounds like we are cooking leftovers. I'm generally just asking. And as I pointed out before, do we need both the New York Times review (Poniewozik) here, as well as the New York Times recap? SportsEdits1 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious about the accuracy of "the aggregate," and how this article [5] (a clear B-, 8.0?) last week, as well as others marked 3 out of 5 stars, were marked as "rotten," when in fact they were clearly over 60%. SportsEdits1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, either negative or positive is going to be at the bottom. It's one or the other. And IMO, positive should be last. 1) The RT consensus implies a negative reception. It does not make much sense for the next paragraph to detail positive reviews. It has no flow. 2) Thrones episodes are traditionally 80-90% on RT. This episode is clearly an outlier (48%), along with The Bells (48%) and The Last of the Starks (58%). I believe that their respective reception sections should be structured as such. 3) Even the positive reviews that I've read still document critical flaws; I've yet to see one that is nearly all acclaim (like every other season's finale review). That said, I will remove the New York Times recap and replace it with an actual review; apologies, I missed that.--Templeowls17 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well "obviously" they are all going to have positive and negative points. And rather than make this so one-sided or complicated, you all could also use other TV shows as a guide, maybe?: [6][7]. It's interesting to note that The Sopranos finale, which received some negative backlash, came out before full blown social media, and a film aggregate was used for television. False Balance? Don't think so. Also, the final season of Dexter was one of the worst reviewed seasons for a cable program in the last 5 years (much lower that Game of Thrones), and yet it too seems to have positive reviews mixed at the beginning of it's finale reception section. Hmmmm. SportsEdits1 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, Made in America was widely critically acclaimed by reviewers when it came out, the reception section even demonstrates that. It was the viewer reception that was mixed, but even then, the mixed reception is from the last 20 seconds of the episode rather the episode as a whole. And I do not think Remember the Monsters should be a guide here. The article is not well written. There are only 2 sections; the plot section is far too detailed and violates multiple Manual of Style guidelines. The reception section cites 5 reviews (3 of which are positive), despite there being 28 rotten reviews on RT. In addition, that episode is widely considered one of the worst finales ever made. Does anyone even dispute that, even yourself? Clearly the reception section is just badly written.--Templeowls17 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Almost seems like the same problems as before...We could just intermix both negative and positive quotes."

I disagree. The proposal is a considerable improvement over what was in the article previously. It is much more coherent and structured. You typically want to separate the mixed, positive, and negative reviews into their own paragraphs. Each review being quoted, however, can always include both positive/negative elements. However, if it was picked for the positive paragraph, then the positive needs to outweigh the negative in the quote. Vice versa for negative reviews in the negative paragraph. You get the general idea. I care less about content and chosen reviews than I do about structure.

"And rather than make this so one-sided or complicated, you all could also use other TV shows as a guide, maybe?"

I'm not sure why you think separation into coherent paragraphs is complicated or one-sided. It really isn't. I didn't bother to look at the examples you linked to, because it isn't necessary to identify and fix the problems here. There's always going to be some variation between articles, especially when different editors are involved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I like what Templeowls17 did with the reception section. And as for quoting the critics, it's best to summarize when we can. See WP:Quote farm. Yeah, WP:Quote farm doesn't hold up well when it comes to reception sections, but we should still at least make attempts to summarize instead of heading straight for quotes. That stated, sometimes the quote or parts of the quote relay a matter better. Also, when a quote is a certain length, WP:Blockquote suggests that we use blockquote format. But it would make for a poor and silly format if we had several or more blockquotes in the section. So breaking up the quotes at times is also beneficial in that way. Per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, there is no need to quote material in some cases. Some words or phrases can simply be stated in Wikipedia's voice without the quotation marks. We should wisely choose what parts to quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it has looked better in the last 24 hours than it did 3 days ago. From actually reading many of the reviews, the general consensus has been mixed to favorable. I also keep seeing the word "bittersweet" used a lot in these reviews as IndelibleHulk pointed out in several edits last night. That "average rating" of 6.4 is also very telling, and I also see that the "Tomato Meter" has risen to nearly 50%. My suggesting is to add one of the more favorable voices toward the top ("bittersweet"?), so all the more positive voices don't read so suppressed down at the bottom. SportsEdits1 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You'll see what you want to see. In the end, the numbers don't lie. 48%, 49%, even 60%... these are not good, especially for a series that has consistently averaged upper 80's or low 90's per episode. Only four times did an episode get a "rotten" score, and three of those times were the last three episodes. Looking at "average rating" (which is lower on the totem pole and harder to judge by the way), episodes were almost always higher than 8.0 and never dipped below 7.2 until the last two episodes, which were 6.35 and 6.4 respectively. The final leg of the series trended negative no matter how you spin it. And I don't know about you, but in school I wouldn't have considered a 64% an acceptable grade. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer that perhaps more paraphrasing would further improve the section. Definitely off to a good start! Keep up the good work! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think anyone is denying that the last two seasons have taken various shortcuts. I was just expressing from the average rating and reading the reviews, that there were still a lot of favorable opinions. I have always been more concerned with the actual sources, and less so about the tomato meter as others. Also noting that the Laura Prudom piece does seem to flow better into the next paragraph. SportsEdits1 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, as I explained in my last post, I don't think you fully grasp what that average rating is telling you. As for "reading the reviews" and forming an opinion that differs from the review aggregator, that ventures into WP:OR territory. RT may not be a perfect system, but it's better than relying on personal research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

SportsEdits1, I'm not sure why you decided to do this when it's clear that's going against the forming consensus in this discussion. I've reverted those edits for now. We are splitting the positive, mixed, and negative reviews based on feedback from multiple editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Listen, it is 5 am now where I live. Actually, this is a "discussion," that I started in WP:GF. And many of the sources and quotes in this section I actually contributed myself, some very late last night (while also working with Starship.paint). I also (re-)added The Washington Post reviews, and The New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times because all of them are considered very reputable sources. And templeowls17 just uploaded these changes yesterday evening (consensus?)- "Certainly needs continued work." I also added the A.V. Club article and the IGN article by Laura Prudom here. So I chose to move the Prudom source and awkward quote (that I previously added, same paragraph) closer (leading into) the next paragraph, that deals with a similar issue of episode's "pace and structure." It sounds better. And I also removed the unnecessary 'short phrases' (unnecessary--'with swelling imagery' and unnecessary parenthetical 'ignoring others completely') that I previously added to the quotes I sourced, to help the wording flow, and sound less clunky. What I don't understand is how all of this (which I already explained in talk, and in the edit summaries)-- got reverted!? So, can you please fix it back? Also I noticed that there are two Atlantic articles in the second paragraph (which still sounds choppy) [8]--templeowls17; this was supposed to already be corrected, and the Atlantic "Cruz" article was already re-added by Starship.paint here. No offense, but it's getting too difficult on the eyes to look all of these diffs up, when they are already explained in talk, and logged in the edit summaries themselves. You can easily look this stuff up. SportsEdits1 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 So, you only fixed the word "also"? SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There are no less than 5 editors here who have agreed to divide up the reviews, yet your edit moved a positive review (Richard Roeper's) from the positive paragraph up to the paragraph that contains mixed/lukewarm reviews. That is the primary reason for the revert. I didn't think moving the Prudom source was necessary, and as for "swelling imagery", that was starship's addition. I went ahead and left it in. I don't feel too strongly about the latter two changes, so if those are ones you really would like to reinstate, then so be it. However, messing with the division of positive/negative/mixed flies in the face of the work others have done to tidy up this section. I would avoid doing that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60GoneIn60, I haven't heard back from you, but I would have preferred you had restored my other contributions. And to clarify, I didn't revert templeowls17 because of all of this crazy conjecture above. I only did it because I saw it as being disruptive because he removed all the reviews from reputable sources/journalists, like Roeper (who used to write with Ebert), Myles McNutt, Poniewozik, etc, without retaining anything. I also didn't have time to reorganize the reception section because I stayed up half the night working with Starship.paint and IndelibleHulk and had to work second shift. I still think Roeper's review belongs closer to the top regardless of whether it's deemed simply positive or negative. There's no reason we can't all work together to make this article better. SportsEdits1 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60 Ah, ok. See you responded now. I think the Prudom quote is written awkward, choppy and works much better as a lead in to the next paragraph. I'll let templeowls17 or starship change the Atlantic reviews if they wish. SportsEdits1 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wording in some of the plot summary

Hi there!

I rarely edit on Wikipedia so I wanted to bring this to the talk page first before making any edits. I'm sorry if this is the wrong thing to talk about here or if I'm being too nitpicky!

I noticed a few changes in summary wording from yesterday to today and I wondered if it wouldn't be correct to characterize Jon's killing of Daenerys as 'reluctant' because he didn't want to do it and tried to convince her off of her plans until he saw she was resolved? Likewise, I wonder if the phrasing "stabbing her to death" is best because it makes it sound like she was stabbed multiple times instead of once to the heart.

I'm sorry if this is not the proper place to put this or if it's not the right thing to discuss on a talk page. I was hesitant to make an edit on such a high profile article. Thank you for considering this!

Anatashala (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

See how your reluctance made you not do it? That's why "reluctantly" doesn't work for Jon Snow, who did it right on time. He was "conflicted", "troubled" or "guilty" about it, but didn't hesitate. As soon as she felt trusted, loved and had her eyes closed, bam! Right in the ticker. One shot is normally all it takes in mercy killings, executions or assassinations. The paragraph doesn't make Jon sound like he's enraged, sadistic or nuts going into this, so I didn't think readers would be confused. It used to say "stabbing and killing her", which could equally sound like 75 times if you're so inclined to believe that.

But yeah, I'm not attached to my wording. As long as the facts stay true. Might be helpful to note his side of the pre-kiss debate, if we want to get your idea of reluctance across. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying!! Your response made me laugh!

I see what you mean! But that's because I'm a scaredy-cat ;) I would argue 'reluctant' is still applicable to his action of killing her because people reluctantly do things quite often. I've reluctantly gone to the blood lab, even though I didn't want to because needles suck. I've reluctantly agreed to surgery, but I still had to do it.

Or if not, would there be another word you'd agree to? As for the kiss, I don't know if that was reluctant as it seemed genuine because, per Kit Harington, he loves her. But anyway, thank you so much for responding!

Anatashala (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There's "begrudgingly", but it's long and full of Gs. I'd use it "cautiously". That might work, too, and is aesthetically less fugly. The kiss was realer than he's given all season, at least in the story. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise, just meant we could get the begrudging caution over if we mentioned what he'd suggested before (forgiveness, consideration of others' values, not firing on future human shields). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Could also devote a paragraph to the scene between Jon and Tyrion. He did more than warn him, he's pretty much the mastermind. Duty beats love, love beats duty, yadda yadda. Nothing too wordy, but enough to convey the semblance of an internal struggle, second-guessing or whatever it's called. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you're right! He's the one who was like, "Do it, just suck it up and do it or she's going to murder everyone." Should I give it a try? I'll try to summarize that in a few sentences. If it gets too wordy, please feel free to edit it down.

And yes, I see what you're getting at! I do like one of your former suggestions, 'conflicted', and wrote a draft of the paragraph with a few changes. How is this for the Dany/Jon paragraph? Is it too much?

In the throne room, Jon confronts Daenerys, who justifies her burning of children by blaming Cersei for using them as human shields. She will not forgive Tyrion or the Lannister prisoners, arguing that their executions — and the liberation campaign — are necessary to establish her vision of a good world. Jon tries to convince Daenerys off of this campaign but Daenerys is resolved, convinced only she and Jon are capable of determining what is good. He reaffirms his eternal fealty to her and they kiss, during which a conflicted Jon stabs and kills her. He weeps over her body when Drogon arrives. Drogon melts the Iron Throne and carries Daenerys's body away. Jon is arrested.

Anatashala (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't love the part where he tries to "convince her off of" it. I'd say "tries to dissuade her" (using pronouns to save space). Essentially fine, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll exchange that phrasing for yours. I wrote a paragraph for the Jon/Tyrion scene. I'll add that in but if it's too wordy, not accurate enough, please edit as you see fit! :)

Anatashala (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Anatashala - I thought the guideline was 400 words for a TV episode plot. It's now 489 from like 402. starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a hard and fast limit. As seen in the discussion above, I was adding changes to one of the paragraphs and adding a paragraph for the Tyrion/Jon scene. I apologize.

Anatashala (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's alright. It's at MOS:TVPLOT Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. I'll work on cutting the sections starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Aim for wordiness, not whole facts! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Starship.paint and InedibleHulk for your help and guidance!

Anatashala (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: - I've done my best to trim it, Hulk's done some as well, it's 422 now. starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I very, very much appreciate your efforts both to include my thoughts and keep to the plot summary limitation! Thank you to you and InedibleHulk! Anatashala (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TedEdwards! I'm sorry for bothering you but I was wondering about some of the changes you made to the plot summary? The details removed in your edit (second paragraph with Arya/Tyrion/Jon and third paragraph with Dany/Jon) had been discussed above with InedibleHulk and Starship.paint and we were able to come to a consensus on the details included in those paragraphs.

I discussed this with Flyer22 Reborn and perhaps there is some leeway to the 400-word limit to MOS:TVPLOT cited above? Perhaps we can restore the plot edits discussed above and still establish the familial relationships between the characters that you added? What would be other thoughts on this? Thanks! Anatashala (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• I restored some parts of the summary, which explained Arya and Tyrion's messages better, as well as Daenerys' rationale for her villainous actions. Anatashala - it's actually 392 words now, under 400. starship.paint (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, Starship.paint! I those changes (differences between Arya and Tyrion's warnings, Dany's rationale) better explain the character motives. Hopefully it sticks this time around :) Anatashala (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)