Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA1

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

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...
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): (citations to reliable sources):  (OR):
 * Quite a few ref issues. covered above.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): (focused):
 * Could do with a little beefing up.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Perfic'.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Perfic'.
 * 1) 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'.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: