Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?: new section |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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]]) 02:30, 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]]) 02:30, 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 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]]) 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:31, 2 September 2014
You Win or You Die 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 | ||||||||||
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:You Win or You Die/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. I'll review this one, and make copyedits as I go and jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- like the other article, some reception/out-of-universe material needed in lead (which is a little on the slim side)
- Can we link Sandy Brae somewhere....
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- 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:
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) 02:30, 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) 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)