Talk:The Pointy End/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed a good article before, but how hard could it be :) It might take me a few days to work through this, I've got a bit of a busy weekend ahead.

Initial Comments at 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the lead section needs to be expanded to fully cover the article.
 * Done. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I see two Citation Needed tags and there's an uncited paragraph in the last section.
 * Done. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this a Reliable Source?
 * Probably not (WP:USERG). This probably applies to several other sources. I suppose we could qualify these statements for the time being with "... according to blogs ..." or similar, or remove the material and wait for the DVD set which will probably contain this sort of background information also.  Sandstein   16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's reliable enough for material that's not "challenged or likely to be challenged". There's a bunch of production material scattered here and there, such as in the "making of..." website, but it's been gathered and systematized in blogs.  Thus, we have the choice of a reliable primary, or "unreliable" secondary source. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess that's not holding it back from meeting GA then. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no picture in the infobox, I don't think that's part of the GA criteria but I see that some other articles on this season's episodes have them.
 * Any suggestions as to which picture would be iconic for this ep? Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, maybe something with Sansa? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The article could use a general copyedit.
 * Done,  Sandstein   16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, copyediting looks good. I made a few small changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Links and dabs look ok.
 * Ok, I've gone through and addressed pretty much everything here. Let me know what else is needed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've taken another look at the article and I'm satisfied that it meets the Good Article criteria. Good job guys. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)