Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive5

Game of Thrones


I am listing this article for a peer review in preparation for a future WP:FAC. In the previous FAC an editor noted the lack of academic and scientific sources within the article.

Any comments or feedback, especially in relation to the comprehensiveness and sourcing, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --   LuK3      (Talk)   18:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) And please add the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review!  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * of course, thank you for the heads up. --   LuK3      (Talk)   00:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D
I'd like to offer the following comments, and in doing so I should note that I'm about halfway though watching the series for a second time, and am liking it much less than the first time around. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty US centric
 * "The show was both produced and filmed in Belfast and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Filming locations also included Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Malta, Morocco, and Spain." - this is confusing - was it filmed in the UK, or all over the place?
 * I combined the sentences and removed the Belfast mention entirely. I agree it did sound a little confusing so I think just a list of countries would work better. --   LuK3      (Talk)   19:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * " In 2014, several actors' contracts were renegotiated to include a seventh-season option, with salary increases which reportedly made them among the highest-paid performers on cable television.[11] Several actors' contracts were again renegotiated in 2016, reportedly increasing the salary of five of the main cast members to $1 million per episode for the final two seasons.[12]" - over-long and clunky. Just say they were very well paid from the later series onwards.
 * Reworded. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The 'Conception and development' section should note how prominent the books and Martin were before the TV series
 * I've added some information about the book series to the section. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The series was praised for what was perceived as a sort of medieval realism" - praised by whom?
 * I've added in-text attribution. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Just like people's capacity for good and evil in real life, Martin explores the questions of redemption and character change." - bit tabloid (since when is 'evil' an indisputable thing?)
 * I agree, I have re-worded the sentences in a more neutral, less tabloid-ly tone. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The series allows the audience to view different characters from their perspective, unlike in many other fantasies, and thus the supposed villains can provide their side of the story." - this is confusing
 * I removed the last part of the sentence regarding villains. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Benioff said, "George brought a measure of harsh realism to high fantasy. He introduced gray tones into a black-and-white universe" - discussed in the previous para, and this amounts to people involved in the series praising one another and their work, which isn't very useful or interesting. Delete this, and consider each and every quote from people involved with the show very carefully as this tends to be a pitfall for popular culture articles.
 * I removed the quote. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "A scientific study conducted in 2018 by the Injury Epidemiology journal stated that about 60% of the major characters died as a result violence and war" - delete the first half of this sentence - what the source is is not particularly relevant
 * I removed the journal name attribution. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The series also accurately reflects the substantial death rates in war" - already said. Condense this.
 * I completely removed the sentence. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Martin acknowledges, "I take [history] and I file off the serial numbers and I turn it up to 11" - this is a good example of what should be deleted, as this is Martin saying how clever he is, so there's little value here.
 * I removed the self-promoting quote. I agree it doesn't need to be there, perhaps in the author's article but not the series article. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Benioff and Weiss wrote their episodes together; one wrote the first half of the script with the other writing the second half." - what's meant by 'half' here? Did one of the men write the first 30 minutes and the other the second?
 * So I went through the source again and they did not expand on that. They just said one wrote one half and the other wrote the other half. I can dig deeper to see if there are any addition references regarding the script writing. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Later that month, the series was renewed for a seventh season with a seven-episode order" - delete or merge
 * I deleted that sentence and added a mention of the final season. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The producers initially considered filming the entire series in Scotland, but decided on Northern Ireland because of the availability of studio space." - didn't they also receive financial incentives for filming in Northern Ireland? Surely this also influenced them!
 * I added the tax credit mention and replaced the reference. --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The material on how the series was written and produced implies that it all went without any serious problems, as none are noted. Is this correct?
 * I've added some information about the departure of the source material. I think that was one of the major critical issues, especially with the later seasons. I will try to find some more information on any filming problems. --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Trim both paras in the 'Effect on locations' section, which are rather repetitive and not particularly interesting given that the story is simple. Is there an academic study or similar that can be drawn on here?
 * I've trimmed down both paragraphs, mainly visitor numbers. I also added two sentences regarding the overall impact of the series on both Northern Ireland and Croatia with journal references. --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The attraction, titled Game of Thrones Studio Tour, will be located at former show filming location Linen Mill Studios outside Belfast and will open in 2020" - has this now happened, or been postponed?
 * I could not find any reference that stated the opening was postponed. I removed the opening year but will keep an eye out on any announcement regarding the opening. --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Other directors have been " - watch for the tense here
 * Sentence reworded. --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * " Entertainment Weekly named the title sequence one of the best on television, calling it an "all-inclusive cruise of Westeros" - has it also been criticised? From re-watching the series, it's pretty dull after you've seen it a few times.
 * The 'Sex and violence' section is largely a collection of lots' of peoples views, which makes for rather heavy going (and poses the question each time of why that person's opinion is worth noting - especially as they all seem to be Americans). Surely the level of the text can be raised here, including by drawing on higher quality literature?
 * I have removed the overquoting in the section. I also added some concluding sentences with academic journal references. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The last para of this section should also be expanded upon, as it does seem that the series changed over time in response to this criticism. It would be interesting to discuss how this happened.
 * More broadly, the material on the show's reception seems pretty polite, and is focused on commentary which was published as the series aired. What has the retrospective commentary, including from academics been? Re-watching the show, it's striking to me how uneven much of the plotting is, how lightweight the political aspects of the storyline are, etc - surely there are experts or critics who hate the show?
 * "In 2019, Elizabeth Warren, a United States senator, wrote an op-ed detailing economic inequality in The Cut titled "The World Needs Fewer Cersei Lannisters"" - relevance? (and why pick yet another American example?)
 * I've removed that sentence and added economic inequality to the previous sentence. --   LuK3      (Talk)   02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Do we need both a table and a graph of the viewership? (and why only in the US?)
 * Television ratings graph includes both the graph and table in the syntax. I personally like both graphs but I do understand why it might be overweight. I'm trying to find sources on worldwide viewership numbers. Nielsen Media Research numbers are only for the United States I believe but I can dig around to find any sources for worldwide numbers. --   LuK3      (Talk)   22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "The series and the novels have inspired several video games." - 'inspired' doesn't seem the right word, given that the games would have been commissioned or similar?
 * "with George R. R. Martin, who also co-wrote two of the scripts." - this is the third or fourth time Martin's role as scriptwriter is noted
 * What went wrong with the Bloodmoon project, and the other projects which didn't get that far? I presume that the high cost of producing the show and the series 'brand' for good quality means that HBO are being careful here?
 * House of the Dragon should be redlinked
 * Overall, the article is pretty good, but feels a bit over-long and lightweight at times, especially given the success of the series as a business enterprise and a cultural phenomenon. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comments . I should be able to start working on them today and this weekend. --   LuK3      (Talk)   12:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia
Starting over. First, I assume you've worked in now the sources that Nick-D requested at the last FAC? Next, disclaimer: I don't watch television. At all. I have never seen anything related to Game of Thrones, so am coming at this naive-- in case I say something stupider than usual :) In general terms, I think the article is still a long ways from FAC ready, but that doesn't mean you can't get there. But I suspect that the article has not engaged FAC reviewers because a deep rewrite is needed.   The art of good writing is not so much about what to include, as what to leave out, and a lot could be left out here.  Combined with a better structure and tighter TOC, you will be more likely to attract more reviewers.


 * Overall
 * WP:WIAFA specifically calls for 2.b: appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings for good reason. A rambling TOC is the first indication I look for pointing towards an article that is not tightly focused and organized. Infoboxes in general on Wikipedia are about three times too long to be helpful; when a Table of Contents is as long as the infobox, there are usually organizational problems in the article. I am wondering why there is so much deviation from the Television WikiProject guidelines, and think that getting rid of some of the excess or different sections, with more tightly focused content in the suggested sections, might not solve a lot of the problems here. What we have now is a whole ton of two- or three-paragraph sections, and the intended flow from one to another isn't clear to me. For example:
 * Why do we have Plot and Cast sections as sub-sections of something called "Overview", which isn't really needed at all?
 * Why is Themes under Production?
 * Why do we need a one paragraph section, Title sequence, under Visual effects, which is only three paragraphs?

These are samples only; there is just a lot of choppiness because of the sections. It seems that if you would focus on the structure of the article first, sticking more closely to the TV Project Guideline, and then move on to thinking seriously about how much to leave out as opposed to what to add in, the article will become better organized. Separately, the article is unnecessarily large, at over 10,000 words of readable prose. With a better and tighter copyedit, and removing some of the unnecessary sections, the article will be more readable and more likely to engage reviewers at FAC. I typically find that articles around 6,000 to 8,000 words of readable prose are more approachable and enjoyable. Everything in the article from "Other media" onward amounts to a series of not really necessary one-paragraph sections about items that all have their own articles. And most of the content in those sections is just filling space, and not adding to anything about this article. It could all be covered in two tightly summarized paragraphs to one section, "Other media" (to cover related shows and video games). The more tightly you summarize a large topic, the more readable it becomes, the less maintenance issues you have down the road, and the more likely to engage reviewers the article becomes. I suggest sitting down with a printed version of the article, and a red pen and the TV Manual of Style, and think about surgery: cutting, moving, re-organizing. I do gather that Game of Thrones is a Very Big Deal for TV people, but that doesn't mean a tightly summarized article won't serve our readers better. Please think about how much the writing can be trimmed, and what can be left out ... we don't have to say everything, and a trimmer article, focusing less on minutaie, will be more enjoyable. Here's one example: what is this adding to the article? Why do I need to know this very specific detail? In April 2016, the showrunners' plan was to shoot 13 more episodes after the sixth season: seven episodes in the seventh season and six episodes in the eighth. (Also see MOSNUM issue about that sentence below).


 * MOS nitpickery
 * Please install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt and check dup links. (The WP:SEAOFBLUE is overwhelming at some points.)
 * Have a look at MOS:DATERANGE. WP:ENDASHES (with or without a space) are different depending on whether only month–month, or month day, year – month day, year. Check throughout.
 * I re-did the cast image layout as what was there was just creating clutter; please revert if you dislike anything I do. Also, do we need to re-link all of the characters and actors in their images (I am not sure on that).
 * Excellent job on bundling citations and keeping External links trim.
 * Inconsistent number style: In April 2016, the showrunners' plan was to shoot 13 more episodes after the sixth season: seven episodes in the seventh season and six episodes in the eighth. You can spell out that thirteen for consistency, and switch the seven and six to digits to match the 13 ... sample, check throughout.


 * Prose (some samples)
 * This is convoluted (with needs for hyphenation). I present it as one example of why it is helpful to go through all of User:Tony1's exercises, including the hyphenation page.
 * Fourteen-year-old Maisie Williams, noted in the first season for her debut as Arya Stark, was singled out for her season two work with veteran actor Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister).
 * Because season two is modifying work, it is screaming for a hyphen, which would be awkward. Suggest re-casting the sentence to avoid several issues (including a lack of clarity on the age, and too many clauses in one sentence):
 * Maisie Williams debuted at the age of 14 in the first season as Arya Stark; she was singled out by critics in season two for her work with veteran actor Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister). (Was the 14 in season one or two ? We don't know at what point she was fourteeen-- it needs to be placed in the right part of the sentence.)
 * Check your use of however (see the top of my userpage, and by all means, go through every one of Tony1's writing exercises).

Taking one sample: This is 114 words, full of parentheticals that tire the reader. As an example, why are we told it "was scheduled to begin" on X date: did that date change? For some significant reason? If not, why not shorten that and combine it with the last sentence? That is 102 words, less parentheticals to read through. I am no prose guru, so feel free to ignore, but this kind of tightening is what is needed. Does the Television MOS really want us to list every filming location, which this whole section does? It feels like tiresome trivia to me, but then ... I don't watch television :) The entire filming section is just a list of places used for filming, and could just as easily be presented in a table after the more significant content now in the "Effect on locations" section.  But I'm not sure what MOS TV says on that.

Another sample: That is 140 words. Getting it down to 130, with the most significant part first:

Another example: how much of this needs to be said-- that is, how much of this is typical for any movie or television series, and it is so significant it needs mention here? Applying the wigs was time-consuming; Emilia Clarke, for example, required about two hours to style her brunette hair with a platinum-blonde wig and braids. Other actors, such as Jack Gleeson and Sophie Turner, received frequent hair coloring.

I am just casting about the article for samples of things that can be addressed:Because the effects became more complex in subsequent seasons (including CGI creatures, fire, and water), German-based Pixomondo became the lead visual effects producer ... that construct doesn't work logically. In subsequent seasons, as the effects became more complex, including CGI creatures, fire, and water, German-based Pixomondo became the lead visual effects producer ??

Not sure what this says or why it is where it is: Language-learning company Duolingo began offering courses in High Valyrian in 2017, of which 1.2 million people signed up for between 2017 and 2020. Wherever it belongs (if it belongs) :of which ... signed up for ... ugh ...

Have you incorporated the excellent advice at WP:RECEPTION? I have not done a top-to-bottom read, but suggest that reviewers aren't engaging because the length and organization is discouraging. Think about, it's not what you include, but what you leave out, that makes for a good article. You don't need to answer any of these things I raise, as some may be personal preference, and I am not a prose guru ... just trying to give you some ideas to get the FACs unstalled. There is a whole lot of detail that feels like trivia that might not be needed. These are ideas only; ignore me if I'm clueless on TV. Good luck !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments! I have skimmed through them however I probably won't get editing the article until this weekend. I'll be sure to ping you for any further questions or clarifications. Thank you again. --    LuK3      (Talk)   18:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem-- I'll be rooting for you! Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)