Talk:Game of Thrones/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring seems to have ended and maintained stability since GA review accepted on the 16th. I will be checking for other quick decline before beginning review.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is in question. These articles on major television events or programs can be difficult to remain stable however, it may be the wrong time to attempt this. Past edit warring and current reverts show the article may not have the stability for a GA nomination at this time. I will wait a few more days to see if stability is regained.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonably stable now.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This nomination is being quick declined based on copyright violations and a non free rational that is incomplete which is also a copyright issue.

File:SeanBeanMar09.jpg retains the full copyright of the photographer Sean Bean.
File:Game of Thrones title card.jpg has does not meet all criteria for non free content. Specifically, it requires full information to locate and verify the image's market value. The current info is not enough to show where this image orginates to make verification. A link to the website or further explanation as a screen shot is needed if accurate. The "purpose" is simply not accurate at the moment as well because the way it is written has no meaning almost at all. It should read "As the main means of identification of the subject and to illustrate critical commentary in the article".

Because these were the first two items I checked and they are actual copyright concerns and violations I am compelled to decline this nomination. I will go through the article a little more to check for further copyright issues.

Before nominating this article there are a few other things needing to be taken care of. First, remove or source all claims that are not unquestionable fact unless referenced. Check the references being used as some seem to now be "Page not found".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some further things to clear up:

File:Dubrovnik crop.jpg has author issues that need clearing up as the uploader and author are not the same person it appears.
File:Malta191.jpg needs a description better than "I am the author of this picture".

This portion: "The four seasons ordered so far each consist of ten episodes. Most episodes from the first and second season run for about 52 minutes, while many of the third season's episodes are 56 or 57 minutes long. The series' pilot and the second and third season finale run for more than an hour." seems almost unquestionable and like basic math but it makes some analysis and needs a source for the claim. Also, "so far" seems constraining. Would something like "As of...be more appropriate with a source to lessen the perception of original research?
I believe there is an MOS issue with the tables. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Size "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy. Some material may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing using the summary style method. Consideration may be needed to either keep all the material embedded in the main article or split it off entirely into a sub-article, leaving a {{See}} template...". I think the tables are excessive for GA with the exception be the table in the "Adaptation schedule" section. I would split the other table lists off and link from the main article."

Captions. This seems to be very common but, all claims even in the captions of the images must be referenced unless captioned with straight forward information such as the name subject or location. Most of the images in the article are making claims needing some sort of source even the claim about cosplay. I suggest simply changing all captions to be as straightforward as possible.
External link. Remove all fan sites that are not official sites per MOS external links as they also violate copyright in some instances as well as linking to social networking site, forums etc.
I would pour over all the reference sources before nominating again as I don't believe "winteriscoming.net" is considered a reliable source. This appears to be a personal blog written by one person with some contributors only described with user names.

--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Thanks for taking the time to perform this review. I or others have attended to the copyright issues you raised. The other issues are, in my view, good possibilities for improvement, but I am a bit surprised to find MOS or referencing minutiae of this sort in a GA review. I'd have expected this level of scrutiny only in a "featured article" candidacy. For me, it's not worth the effort to go through all of this, but others may see this differently. Sandstein 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein and thank you for your comments. I use the GA criteria and unfortunately the way they are written is not always as clear to some, but it clearly states that the MOS for specific topics must be complied with such as: "b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists is part of the listed part of the GA review and is not a subpage. External links is part of Layout and I always go by the main page, which is NOT a sub page but the main page for hat guideline. The external links issue is a copy right issue as well as a cruft issue and contains issues I feel are unacceptable for a GA article. If you feel there is anything in my review you do not agree is part of the GA review process feel free to ignore them. I won't be doing a second review in consideration of your comment and what would now be a conflict with you on this subject. This is a good article. It just doesn't meet the GA criteria as I see it right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]