Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bastards/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016.

Battle of the Bastards

 * Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the ninth episode of the sixth season of Game of Thrones. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria and because I have worked on this article for a while and being that this is the biggest episode of the biggest series of all time has inspired me to continue and push to get this article to FA. I am willing to work and put time on this article to make that happen. I just need someone to review it and tell me what to do, to make it a Featured article. AffeL (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Leaning oppose. I confess I'm a little nervous about supporting an article about such a recent TV episode at FAC; in the short term, what about the year-end reviews? What about awards season? (More things might come around in the medium or long term, such as academic analysis, retrospective reviews, etc., but I wouldn't oppose on that basis.) There is also some clumsy writing:


 * "Bolton army surrounding Jon Snow's army, The battle required 25 days to shoot."
 * "where Jon beats him into the mud, locks him up in the kennels, and Sansa feeds him to his own hounds"
 * "and swear loyalty to help her take the Seven Kingdoms"
 * ""Battle of the Bastards" received widespread critical acclaim, praising it as one of the series' best episodes"
 * "and with one critic describing it as a "masterpiece." Critics described" MOS:LQ, uncited quote, repetition.
 * "gigantic battle" Colloquial
 * "as "terrifying, gripping and exhilarating,"" As above
 * "it "thrilling." Filming" Again
 * "25 shooting days, along with 500 extras, 600 crew members and 70 horses" I don't know if this has a name in grammar, but I'd call it a category mistake. It doesn't require days and extras in the same way; "arrived in a carriage and a foul mood" is a joke, not an example of good documentary writing.
 * "the episode achieved a viewership of 7.66 million in its initial broadcast. The episode" Repetition.
 * The Masters or the masters?

That's just what jumps out at me from the lead and a very quick skim of the plot (which is both quite long and pretty heavy-going for someone who doesn't watch the programme). I don't think this is ready for FAC at this time. Sorry- I know this probably isn't want you want to hear. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have looked at and fixed almost all of the things you mentioned above. You said "uncited quote".. The ref is in the body of the text(Battle of the Bastards). I thought there should not be no reference in the lead.


 * And about the plot.. don't know what to say there but if you are familiar to "Game of Thrones" you know that it's a very big, complicated show. Every episode is basically a movie.. kinda hard to simplify it then. Besides there is already quite a short part about the plot in the Lead. About the award season, all the nominations and wins will be added on the list in the award section(Battle of the Bastards), nothing more. The article will stay as it is.. no new things is likely to be added. just awards or maybe something else, but it be minor.


 * I have asked for a peer review(Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) and i'm ready to put as much time as possible for this article. If you have the time.. I would truly appreciate it if you would review it so I would know what to improve on. AffeL (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Quotes always have to be cited, no matter where they appear. If you're keen on keeping refs out of the lead, you could just avoid using quotes there. I do think that peer review is the right way to go, and I'm pleased to hear that you're committed to improving the article. However, peer review and FAC are not allowed to be run concurrently; I'd recommend that this nomination is closed at this time, and you seek input from people at PR; a mix of people familiar and unfamiliar with the show, and especially some people familiar with taking articles (especially articles about TV programmes/episodes) through FAC may be best. I'll do my best to drop by, and I might be able to think of some people you could try contacting. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- As Josh says, an article shouldn't be listed at PR and FAC simultaneously. Based on what Josh has noted above, and indeed on AffeL's nomination statement, I think PR is the better venue for the article at this stage, so I'll archive this and encourage you to continue with the PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.