Talk:Home (Game of Thrones)/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: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to be in good shape, and I see no reasons to quick fail it, so I'll review it in detail over the next few days. I'll try to be quick, given how long it's been in the queue. Vanamonde (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All prose issues have been addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues with MOS

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Sources are formatted fine

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Inline citations are okay

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issues found here.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Only issue addressed satisfactorily below.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All main aspects have been addressed

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No recent issues with stability

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I am not an expert on image licensing, but it seems okay: the fair use image, in particular, has a thorough rationale

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All captions are okay

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing now.

Specific comments

Plot

• First mentions of characters, especially minor ones, should use full name and/or should have a phrase of introduction. This needs to be fixed for Walda Frey, but can you check for the rest, too?

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "thereby securing his position as the new Lord Bolton and Warden of the North" is an analytical comment, not directly from the episode. It should be sourced, or removed.

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• The "In the North" plot section is a little large compared to the others: can it be pruned a little?

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Roose warns Ramsay that his reckless actions would turn the entire North against them" something is a little off, grammatically, here...

Changed - AffeL (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• "her blind training" is a phrase that folks who don't know the story will be completely thrown by. How about "continues to train blind"?

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After being defeated again" she has fought more than twice, and this is not any notable fight: so I would suggest "after one particular defeat, ..."

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Jaqen returns" from where, to where? "Jaqen, who she has not encountered on screen for a while, appears and..."

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I'm not wrong, Arya is not yet training with the waif in the temple, but is still being attacked on the streets: this needs to be made clear.

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Bran will soon need Meera's help when he is able to engage in his vision quests in the open air." Confusing.

Fixed - AffeL (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Davos Seaworth (Liam Cunningham) and the Night's Watch loyalists prepare themselves for battle when Alliser Thorne (Owen Teale) and his allies begin to break down the door." This sentence is, again, confusing to anybody who hasn't seen the episode. The section should mention that davos et al are guarding Jon's body within a chamber in the castle, etc.

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wunwun breaches the gates, IIRC, not the walls.

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest leaving Ghost out of the picture, but otherwise, "comes to attention" is an odd phrase to use.

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Production

• I think a brief explanation of what the "inside the episode" videos are would be helpful

Done - AffeL (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• The phrase "and give context into the current story line," is also confusing, and I'm not sure what is meant by it.

Removed - AffeL (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• Section is generally good, but the third paragraph is a bit odd at the moment, as it seems to refer mostly to Jon Snow's death, and not his resurrection.

What do you suggest I do about that?. Should I remove it, change it or leave it be? - AffeL (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a review of the episode, so there should be a way to work around it. I think Egner goes into such detail because he is essentially saying that Jon's resurrection was unsuprising: and then offers reasons why. So if you could add a sentence prefacing what you already have, it should be okay.

Again, boldly added this. This I am more insistent on, as the paragraph was really out of place before.

• I think the section should have details from at least two reviews, and Egner's review currently doesn't seem to deal with the episode, so I would suggest adding another one.

Added another review - AffeL (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• this result is worrying. It is quite possible that this is youtube lifting from Wikipedia, but I'd like you to comment on this.

Yes that is what you said, youtube lifting from Wikipedia. That video was uploaded months after this article was created. - AffeL (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• Not too happy with the summary of the "at the wall" section: Jon's death is not causing disputes, it's about to cause a fight to the death: and the wildling intervention only allows Melisandre to resurrect Jon, it is not so direct as currently made out.

Done - AffeL (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was still dissatisfied, so I have boldly tweaked this. Please let me know if you have issues with my changes.

• I don't think "shocking" is the best adjective for Bolton's death: surprising, perhaps? Unexpected?

Done - AffeL (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it's entirely appropriate to mention only the US ratings for a British TV series...

It's not a british TV series. Game of Thrones is an American TV Series. - AffeL (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Um. Yes. Vanamonde (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• After a couple of reads of this article, I'm worried that it has a bit of an INUNIVERSE problem (no, not strictly speaking, so don't bother with the guideline :) ) in the sense that a lot of it is reliable reports of things that folks involved with the episode have said and done. I'm wondering if there is more commentary on the production process available, and I would ask that you do a brief check. Nothing hugely exhaustive, this is not FAC.

Can't seem to find anything else to add. - AffeL (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is it: address the remaining points, and I'll pass this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All done - AffeL (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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.