Talk:Blackwater (Game of Thrones)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I cannot review for copyright right now (Earwig is down), though I intend to. If a nominator who had GAs had sent this up, I would be quickfailing. However, I don't think that's the right call for a first-time nominator when the prose is salvageable and they have yet to experience the GA process. What you need to learn is how not to attribute motive that is unsaid in the sources. There are a few refs of questionable quality to tackle, as well. 7-day hold to Askarion, possibly more needed. You will be pinged again when the Earwig review comes back. Please ping me when edits have been made to resolve these concerns. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review! As embarrassing as it is to have almost quickfailed, I'm grateful for the opportunity to continue with the process. I've made the necessary copy changes, and I will be rereading the sources to resolve any remaining original research issues today or tomorrow. I will ping you when I've finished. Thank you! — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I believe the issues have been resolved and I'm ready for you to reexamine the article. — Askarion ✉ 02:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This is good stuff, @Askarion. I'm glad you took some of the advice to heart. I think this article had some very good examples of things the source just never actually said. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Copy changes

Lead

A general comment about the lead section. I see it has several citations. Most articles, with the exception of controversial claims or information not repeated later in the article, don't have citations in the lead (see MOS:LEADCITE). Consider following suit and relocating the citation invocations and/or information into the body.

• At the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards, the episode won the awards for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Drama Series (One-Hour) and Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series (One Hour), and was Peter Dinklage's choice to support his nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series. The comma here is not needed. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences explains why. If I see ", and" in a sentence (usually), it means that I can split it there and have separate sentences. But there is no subject after ", and", and "Was Peter Dinklage's choice" is not a full sentence. So remove the comma or add "it" before "was", which may be preferable because of the long award titles. Future issues of this type are tagged (CinS)

 Done. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Plot

• Joffrey orders Ser Mandon Moore take command Add "to" after "Moore"

 Done. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Production

• Change "costed" to "cost"
• With their still-limited resources, producers decided not to stage the battle precisely as described in the novels, but rather to scale it down Remove the second comma (CinS)
• to keep the audience engaged, while also avoiding expensive wide shots involving many extras This comma can go as well
• The end credits version was performed by the American indie rock band The National, and sung by their vocalist Matt Berninger. Remove comma after The National (CinS)
• the season two premiere, Remove this comma because it creates some weird issues with consecutive appositives.

 Done. All five. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Reception

• On the night of its premiere, the episode achieved a viewership of 3.38 million for its initial airing at 9:00pm, and an additional 0.83 million viewers for the rerun at 11:00pm Remove the second, unnecessary comma (CinS)
• by about 20% This is a non-technical article. Write out "percent". MOS:PERCENT
• 'Blackwater,' Even though inside a quote, conform to our style by making this a logical quote. MOS:LQ
• and continued "but what ultimately made Blackwater so impressive wasn't the scope, but the focus." Because you quote a sentence fragment, quotation mark before period. If you quoted a whole sentence here, this would be correct.

 Done. All four. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and spot checks

Earwig reveals no issues, mostly quotes and proper nouns. (@Askarion: This is done and looks good here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC))

There are four references that a script I use, User:Headbomb/unreliable, marks as generally unreliable. Leaving aside George R.R. Martin's blog (acceptable here as attributed self-published statements for Martin), they are [3] (PopSugar) and [11] (New York Post). Consider finding alternate, more reliable sources for these.

 Fixed. The PopSugar article has been replaced with Time Magazine. Upon closer inspection, The New York Post article was quoting the interview Benioff and Weiss gave to Entertainment Weekly, which was already cited, so I replaced the Post citation with the EW one. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Use a date script (User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates) to unify the date styles in article text (mdy) versus references (dmy).

 Done. — Askarion ✉ 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Of the 47 sources, 5 were selected for random spot checks:

• 2: IGN guide with first air date. This wiki guide is not a reliable source; it is user-generated content. Some other, reliable source must surely have this air date information.

 Fixed. There were two sources I could find that mention the airdate: the Boston Globe and Business Insider. I've added the Business Insider one because the article itself is a bit less weird (Boston Globe is an entire article about emojis). I'm not sure where the best place to cite it would be, though, if not in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE). I've placed it in the infobox for now. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• 9: The $5-6 million average remained throughout the first five seasons of Game of Thrones, except for one particular episode. Season 2's penultimate episode, "Blackwater," featured an enormous battle sequence, which required extremely large set pieces with catapults, various props, and a full-scale 14th-century ship. In order to properly develop the Battle of Blackwater episode, Benioff and Weiss requested an extra $2.5 million. HBO countered with $2 million, bringing the total cost of just that one episode to $8 million. I don't think this passage quite justifies the motive attribution in though showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss knew this would not be enough to depict the battle as described in the novels from the article. They didn't. You could say they requested more money, but not that they "knew this would not be enough" from this source.

 Fixed. That passage sounded like original research, so I've rephrased it. The article no longer claims to know what Benioff and Weiss did or did not know about how much they were able to adapt. The article now reads "Showrunners were concerned that adapting the full scale of the battle described in George R. R. Martin's A Clash of Kings would require a larger budget than the $6 million HBO approved for the episode" and cites Vanity Fair. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• 18: Offline source. Replacing in spot check with
  • 16: This is a weird one. It confirms he wrote The Pointy End, but I also checked #17 next to it. He never says that it was harder than The Pointy End. All he says is that it is a bitch of an adaptation, the original author made the damn battle way too big and too expensive. Is there something I'm missing? Or does this need to be rephrased?

 Fixed. There was nothing to suggest that Martin found "Blackwater" harder to write in comparison to "The Pointy End", and "The Pointy End" probably doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I've rephrased the passage to remove any mention of it. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• 26: Thrillist listicle mentioning Pixomondo as the studio that did this visual work. Is there something better, by chance?

Unfortunately not one that mentions "Blackwater" specifically. An MTV article mentions that Pixomondo worked on "season 2", but doesn't get more specific than that; and a Den of Geek article mentions that Pixomondo worked on "the Battle of the Blackwater" but only in passing and doesn't mention the famous green explosion specifically, which is what the wording of the article implies Pixomondo was responsible for. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• 44: Almost got thrown off by the Emmy site's weirdness, but it does show GOT as a winner.

Images

There are two images:

• A non-free image of the green "wildfire" from the episode. It is used as the identification element in the infobox and is also discussed at some detail in the body of the article. An appropriate NFUR is on the image.
• A 2016, CC-BY-SA 3.0 portrait of George R.R. Martin.

Encouragement: Add alt text for both to increase accessibility for users using screen readers. You do this by adding an |alt= parameter to the infobox and to the image code. Alt text is something you'll have to learn about if you take pages to FAC.

 Done. Did the best I could with it, but could probably use some tweaking. — Askarion ✉ 19:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.