Talk:Tyrion Lannister/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll complete this within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * Too many citations in the lead that are against WP:LEADCITE. It is encouraged to only cite controversial information, so cutting down on some citations in the lead wouldn't hurt &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is also missing on some key points that would make it summarize the article better. The lead does not mention the character's development/creation and his plot is also looking thin Beefed up the lead.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Family tree of House Lannister was an empty section, so I was bold and erased it, I hope nobody minds &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Dana Jennings of The New York Times calls him "a bitter but brilliant dwarf whose humor, swagger and utter humanity make him the (often drunken) star of the series." - shouldn't this part be in the recognition and awards section? It sounds a lot like a critics reception to me Reworked that section.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the Merchandising section significant enough to be here? In its current form it is just a list and contains no prose? Added a better intro, kept embedded list but citations are all reviews and not retail so there's notability IMO.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "even before, in season 2" - Season should be capitalized &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will address the issues you mention and see what you think. I thought the Dana Jennings quote was a good introduction/summary of the character and his popularity for that section but I agree with your instincts, I'll try to use it a little differently there and move the more complimentary bits to the recog section. As far as the merchandising, it seems as though this character has more than most others in the series as a direct reflection of his popularity, but I don't know that there's a source that will back me up on that. I did toy with the idea of putting it in prose but at this point it would be just as flat as a list, and lists are acceptable within articles, albeit not preferred. I'll take a look at the citations in that area and see what I can do. Also, I hadn't noticed that someone had messed with the family tree template so it was displaying at the bottom of the article and disrupting the nav template. I've fixed it, and restored it to this article, but do you think this is the best way to display it? Thanks again.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold
I like this article, it already passes the "broad in coverage" criteria and is looking pretty comprehensive as it is. The only problem standing in its way are some organisation issues along with some prose issues, but other than that it is pretty solid. I'll leave this on hold for seven days. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried to address these issues, let me know what you think.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for your changes to the article, it now meets the GA criteria. The lead has been expanded and now summarizes the article, with the body being comprehensive and broad. Well done ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)