Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/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: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am a fan of the books and series, and would love to pass this. However I am seriously concerned about the quality of the references used. Since it has been in the queue for a while now I will give the nominator a chance to respond, but my gut feeling is that this is a fail.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There were some awkward sentences and the prose is stilted and ambiguous in some places. I started giving it a copy edit as I read through to fix up some as I knew the story quite well. Feel free to check them [1]. I stopped after the first three paragraphs as I was making quite a few changes. It could do with a good copy edit, some of the sentences try and convey too much information and there is a lot of redundancies. There are also quite a few one sentence paragraphs that could be worked in better. The lead itself is sparse and could be filled out quite a bit. There is no mention of the reception and by the condensing the plot down to two lines it assumes a lot of prior knowledge from the reader. If the reader has not been following the show or books the plot description in the lead would be very confusing.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
This is the big one. The production section is referenced to Blogs, fan sites and one of the actors homepages. I can't consider them reliable. The plot section should not attempt to say anything that is not in the show. While the books may justify the use of astounded and apparent mishap this should focus on what is shown on screen.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The long list of guest characters seems unnecessary, many do not have article to link to. I know it is difficult with series, but there is not enough context given in the plot for someone who is reading this by itself to follow.
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):
I see the previous ones have a fair use screenshot in the infobox. One could possibly be used here, the swords around Tyrion would look good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The prose issues can be fixed relatively easily the reference ones not so. I have looked back at the previous ones and seen that Winter was failed for this same reason. Kingsroad and Snow were passed by the same reviewer, despite some concerns raised about the sources (Kingsroad has a references tag on it currently). I understand your argument about not everything needs to be sourced, but to have a whole section sourced to obviously unreliable ones is a bit much. Surely there must be at least one reliable source that has this information.

Reference details

1) Westeros.org[2][3] is a fan site[4]. The interview could be used, but it needs to be said where he was interviewed. "In an interview on fan site Westeros.org Bryan Cogman said...."

2) Not a blog [5][6] is GRRM's own personal blog site. He wrote the original story and an episode so his opinion is important. Where it is attributed to him it's use is fine.

3) Conanstevens.com [7][8] Conan's personal website and blog. Undecided about this one, it is not a very professionally done website, but the information it sources is fine. It does lead to a bit of undue weight being given to his casting.

4) Winter is coming [9] also a fan site [10] I have serious reservations about it being used for the filming locations.

5) Suvudu [11] a very large blog site, run by a publishing company. I am only vaguely familiar with it, but it is probably reasonably reliable. It also needs to be written more accurately (the source says "I’m told that dropping his name into the list was the idea of exectuive producer D.B. Weiss, who knows his 80’s fantasy films, we’re guessing").

(Note: I renumbered these for ease of reference. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)) [reply]

It's not that these can't be used for some information, I am just weary of using them as the only sources for such a key section. If there were some more reliable source sprinkled amongst them it would go a long way to easing my mind. The official site, DVD commentary, entertainment magazine or anything that demonstrates some editorial oversite before publishing that would be fine. AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, numbers 2 and 3 seem to clearly meet the letter and spirit of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. #4 is mentioned in #2 as a good place for discussion ([12]), albeit that's a bit of a stretch to call it a ringing endorsement for the factual nature of the site. I don't dispute your characterization of #5 at all.

On #1... Westeros.org has been around for a long time. It's a fan site for the entire body of work, and predates the TV series. I don't see any problem with your suggestion... but isn't labeling where an interview came from part of in-line attribution? If it's labeled in the footnote, does it need to be labeled in the text as well? Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'll look for other RS'es for as much of this as I can find... but I've already looked for shooting location info, as part of the other GA reviews, and there's just nothing out there that would be considered an RS. Google "game of thrones" "paint house", and see if you can find anything beyond what I have: plenty on web search, including other non-RS that confirm locations, but nothing on Google News. Which leaves us a dilemma: cite what we have with the sources we have, given that there are no sources contradicting it (hence not "likely to be challenged" per WP:V), or take out the sourced, uncontested information in the interest of "improving" the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the official site.[www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html] I can't access it with this computer. There is this which may be able to be used [13]. AIRcorn (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this reply. I'll see what I can find there, but previous ventures haven't brought up anything useful... Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only Ref #2 lists the date, where this parameter should be filled in for all the other sources when avaliable (I believe the date published is avaliable in for every ref on the list, though I have not checked). Ref #12 also does not give the correct name of the article. Also, the film Dragonslayer should be italicized. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let anyone watching this know that I will be away for the next few weeks. Will pick it up when I get back. AIRcorn (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been exceptionally patient! I will do my best to give you a final product to work with by the time you do! Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Okay back, sort of (may be a bit busy up until Xmas). A discussion is taking place about whether to automatically fail articles that have been under review for 30 days, which will occur tomorrow for this article. I don't completely agree with it, but this has been dragging on a bit long and I see little action on the history page. I realise you have other commitments, but if action is not taken within the next couple of days I will have no choice but to fail it. These are comments that have been mentioned above; not all of these are necessary, but a response to each would be appreciated.

Expand the lead (maybe add reception and production).
- Done. Also condensed into two paragraphs.
Make the plot more accessible.
- Done. Hopefully it's not too pedantic.
Reduce the long list of guest characters. Some are not guests and many not notable.
- Cleaned off about 1/3 of them. Do you have a specific rubric you'd like to see used?
  - See comment below
Add more context to the plot.
- Done as part of making it more accessible, I hope.
Work on better references for the production section (use the reliable notice board discussion as a guide).
- Got several refs now to the official "Making Game of Thrones" primary source.
Reduce the focus on Conan Stevens in casting or add some more casting for other new cast members in this episode. Bronn is noticeably short.
- Conan Stevens has something there. I can't find anything about Bronn's casting, other than a fansite wish list of people they would have liked to have seen cast.
A non-free image could be put into the infobox.
- ~~I don't have easy access to one. The promotional stills on the HBO website are in Flash, and I don't know how to extract a photo from flash, personally...~~ OK, I've got one now. I don't add fair-use images very often, so please check to make sure I did it right.
Respond to Glimmers comments above regarding references, particularly regarding reference #12. Not too concerned about the dates (although they would be nice), but italicise the film.
- Film italicized, dates added.

I have not re-reviewed the prose yet as there are other issues to deal with first. AIRcorn (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling at the moment, and the ArbCom elections have impaired both my time, and to a lesser extent, my motivation. I'll see if I can get some work done on this on Sunday. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my comments are inline above. Thanks again for your patience, I hope this substantially addresses them. Jclemens-public (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just went through the prose and made changes as I went. I don't usualy do this, but feel with everything happening at once you wont mind. If you get a chance to review it that would be ideal as I did most of it from memory. Feel free to change or revert anything if you don't agree. I still don't like the guest characters list. It just seems wierd to have reaccuring characters as guests. Lord Varys, Bronn, Pycelle, Renly, Samwell, Hodor, Gendry, Doreah etc arn't really guests as they appear so often. I would not even call some of them reaccurring as they are central to the plot. I can't even remember who Tohbo Mott is and Tommon only appears very breifly in the series, was he even in this episode? I don't know what is usually supposed to go in there, maybe it works better for semi self contained episodes where new characters appear just for that episode. It appears very random to me at the moment. Is it really needed? AIRcorn (talk)

Ok, I think I have the prose nailed down pretty tight, unless I've missed something. As far as guests, go, I don't see any relevant guidance at WP:MOSTV to cover the situation. I don't have a strong feeling on this one way or another, but I'd like to go ahead and make the episodes consistent across the season. Who else can we ask for an opinion on this? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only thing I can find on guest stars is the documentation at Template:Infobox television episode/doc, which says "Only guest actors in notable roles should be included in the list." That's not entirely workable, as almost no guest roles merit their own Wikipedia articles, but I think what it means is major roles, vs. walk-ons, and that's the (surprise!) standard to which I was already working. Good enough? Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I looked through the credits in the episode and they list the "stars" at the start and the "guest stars" and "also starring" at the end. This is not how I would define guest stars. I had always thought of a guest star being Michael Jackson or Glenn Close appearing in the Simpsons (well known celebrities appearing in short roles). At least that rules out the original research worry I had after reading the reply above. I still don't like that list, but at least I know where it comes from and it seems consistent with other episodes I found. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 12 December 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.