Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?: new section |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#Deletions_of_Westeros.org_from_other_articles_may_mislead_new_participants.3B_wait_until_the_RSN_discussion_is_over here]. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
The deletion of Westeros.org and the content it supports from this and other articles has been contested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#Deletions_of_Westeros.org_from_other_articles_may_mislead_new_participants.3B_wait_until_the_RSN_discussion_is_over here]. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
== RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS? == |
|||
There is an RfC at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC:_Is_Westeros.org_a_suitable_source_for_this_content.3F Oathkeeper] regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert [[WP:SPS|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. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:39, 2 September 2014
A Golden Crown 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. | ||||||||||
|
Television GA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
A Song of Ice and Fire GA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Misc
- According to the Atlantic's Scott Meslow, "Ned's principles are, as always, admirable, and he's clearly interested in justice. But the sad truth is that the lack of guile that makes him honorable also makes him a pretty poor king. It's a terrible idea to order the arrest of the man who is single-handedly financing your kingdom." [12]
- If you can pull it off, it is of course an excellent idea -- all his holdings will be attainted and fall to the crown, including, conveniently, the IOUs signed by the crown. The real terribleness is the "if you can pull it off" -- in a union-of-kingdoms feudal situation with each great noble holding their own army (and no standing army) you pretty much can't.80.101.113.45 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:A Golden Crown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, this is a good start! Here are some issues that I notice:
Lead
- What is a teleplay? If it's the same thing as a script, can you just say script instead?
- Wikt:teleplay says it's different. I'd prefer to leave it... Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- You don't really need to use references in the lead per WP:LEADCITE - can you move the first citation down to the Writing section, and use it to cite the first sentence there?
- None of the characters mentioned, in the lead or the body, are linked - can you add links for some of the most important ones?
- Instead of quoting a review in the lead, could you just summarize the reception section and tell us what most reviewers thought of the episode? Change it to something like, "The episode was reviewed positively, with critics praising the acting and the episode's focus on the moral dilemmas associated with power."
Prose
- Actually quite good! The writing quality is high.
- In the Casting section, you use the term wildling without saying what a wildling is.
- The phrase "too young and hot" should be cited, since it is a direct quote.
Broadness of coverage
- This article is actually a little lopsided. Look at Meet Kevin Johnson for an example of a well-balanced TV episode article. Specifically:
- The plot summary makes up over half the article's body. Can you trim it down?
- The production section should be expanded. Where was the episode filmed? Were there any guest actors? This article would benefit from more of this sort of out-of-universe information. Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things has about as much production info as plot info - can you do the same here?
Verifiability
- What makes winter-is-coming.net and westeros.org reliable sources?
- They're not RS'es in the Wikipedia policy sense. They are high quality fan sites which host uncontested material, which have been allowed in certain circumstances in the past, e.g. The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to place this on hold for now. Right now it fails broadness of coverage and possibly verifiability. Still, I am confident that these issues can be corrected and this article can pass eventually. :) --Cerebellum (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Due to spectacularly bad timing, I've still got another article in this series on hold, but I will try to address these over the next couple of days. I am going to be working 110 hours over the next 11 days, though, so my Wikipedia time will be somewhat more limited than normal. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I now have my other GA review handled, so I will be able to devote more time to this one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, in view of the work you've done already, I think that this article is up to GA standards now. I still have doubts on a couple of the references, but if they were good enough for the other reviewer they're good enough for me. Passing as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I will continue to improve this article and the others as I seek to get this whole season to a good topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, in view of the work you've done already, I think that this article is up to GA standards now. I still have doubts on a couple of the references, but if they were good enough for the other reviewer they're good enough for me. Passing as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, I now have my other GA review handled, so I will be able to devote more time to this one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
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) 02:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?
There is 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) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)