Talk:The Kingsroad/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pedro J.  the rookie 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets see:


 * Add Alt to the image
 * Improve lead with production and reception information
 * Their are parts of the production tat don't have refrences, one of them being in the writing section.
 * Also their seem to be alot of unreliable sources like fansites and blogs. Thease don't work.

I'll give it a week to decide if I fail it or pass it. Pedro J. the rookie 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding "alt" descriptions to images is not required of the good article criteria (or even the featured article criteria).-- Beloved Freak  12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed but its always good to have it plus as the reviewer I can ask that the nominator adds the ALT. Pedro J.  the rookie 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can, but it has nothing to do with whether the article is listed or not.-- Beloved Freak  18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I get an extension? Now that we've got Lord Snow squared away, I find myself busy with other things. I should be able to get to this article by this weekend.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Pedro J.  the rookie 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please look at the references on both of these nominated. Lord Snow should not have been passed, it has only got blogs and fansites supporting the content it contains and this is exactly the same. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the other GA review, but I'll summarize the discussion here:
 * 1) Not every source in an article, even a GA, must be reliable--just those on things challenged or likely to be challenged. Think of it this way: if a statement is OK unsourced per WP:V, it's certainly OK unreliably sourced.
 * 2) The sites that remain either belong to the book's author (an acceptable source per SELFPUB), or are those endorsed by the author (ditto). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the governing text for this is from WP:WIAGA 2.b. "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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" If you have any specific issues with how any source is being used, I'd appreciate it if you'd give specific feedback, because general feedback contrary to WIAGA does not help me fix anything. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite not receiving specific feedback on which sources are reliable "enough", I've gone through and swapped sources, added alt tag, expanded the lead. Oh, I also went through and copyedited the entire article for clarity. Please provide additional feedback if you believe this does not yet meet GA criteria. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass. Pedro J.  the rookie 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)