Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific notes

• "Running 62 minutes long" Not sure about that, it's a little too specific, try "Running an hour long..."

disagree - exact is good - and a standard convention for films/TV shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "paving over the work done by director" What do you mean by that exactly?
• Hand could do with an explanation in the article, not sure it's used in American (I'm English though, so I wouldn't really know). At least, in the lede, expand it to Hand of the King.
• The caption of the photo could do with some concision and a link to Bean.
• "his old friend Ned that" 2 commas needed.
• "her husband Jon was" 2 commas needed.
• "and executive produce" and be executuve producers to
• "direct the pilot episode, that was shot between" which was...
• "original pilot that did not return for the series" who did...
• Link needed to Doune Castle.
• Kingdom of Heaven needs a link.
• The sentence after the Kingdom of Heaven needs a reference. As does the one after it.
• First sentence of Ratings needs a ref.
• "the following week climbed the total viewership" That doesn't make sense.
• "in United Kingdom" in the UK
• The HitFix review needs quote marks.
• "show is "feast for the eyes"" a "feast..."
• The last sentence is rather clunky.

General notes

• Could the lede be expanded a little bit? The paragraphs feel a bit bare as if they need a bit of beefing up?
• In "The original pilot" section, the people appearing that are written in list-form should be put in prose.
• The Writing section needs a lot more references and the one reference it does have is unreliable and should be removed (it's a fansite).
• A lot of the references are unreliable I'm afraid... Out of 15, Ref 1 is a Game of Thrones fansite, Ref 4 is a blog (despite its name), Ref 6 is the same fansite as ref 1, Ref 8 is the same blog as ref 4, Ref 9, as aforementioned, is a fansite, Ref 13 is a blogsite. Ref 14 is a blogsite and not a professional review website. With so many iffy refs, it makes the content kind of questionable which is why I'm going to have to fail this, because it needs a rewrite essentially.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose needs a little bit of work, but once a few changes are made it'll be cushy... the refs however...

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

   Quite a few ref issues. covered above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

   Could do with a little beefing up.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Perfic'.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Perfic'.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perfic'.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: