Talk:The Red Woman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's finally get this started:

• The After the Thrones mention should be duplicated in the body of the article. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the article itself.
• Typically the lead of television episode articles at GA/FA will have a line in the lead prior to the explanation of the plot which succinctly explains the overall premise of the series. For example, here's The X-Files one: "The X-Files centers on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files. Mulder is a believer in the paranormal; the skeptical Scully was initially assigned to debunk his work, but the two have developed a deep friendship." You would put this at the start of the plot paragraph followed by "In this episode..." and then lead into the existing paragraph. Have a play around, although I don't envy you the task of trying to think up two lines to summarise Game of Thrones.
• Writing/Casting can be merged (since Casting is so short). Also, the existing Casting lines are uncited.

Have to head out, so to be continued. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's continue.

• There's a couple of duplicated links - Jonathan Pryce and Joe Nafahu (currently under casting) and Carice van Houton (under filming).
• Ratings - did the following episode see an increase or a decrease in viewer levels?
• Link Charlie Jane Anders and io9. Also given that the main article for io9 doesn't show the name in italics, that sets the standard that you shouldn't either here. Same italics issue with HitFix, which should also be linked to.
• Further issue with the HitFix review - it was reviewed by a reviewer (Alan Sepinwall) and not the actual website.
• Same issue with Vulture - it was the opinion of Nate Jones, the reviewer, not the website.
• A more general comment about the Critical reception section - You speak in general terms at the top of the section, which is fine if you were summarising the views that were to come. But in those reviews you haven't mentioned the points raised in the generalisation. So the opinions on Brienne/Sansa/Theon needs to be attributed to someone in the text.
• Given that you've used io9, Vulture, HitFix as the main source of reviews, were there none from mainstream publications? This was the first episode of the season for arguably the most popular television series right now. I'd find it surprising that the Washington Post, New York Times etc said nothing about it.

• I've just had a quick google for "the red woman" +premiere and I can see reviews from Forbes, TV.com, the Evening Standard, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter just on the summary.

• Also, you've got a paragraph specifically about the reaction to the Dorne changes, which is fine, but I've just realised that you've only got the one generalisation about the rest of the episode, and nothing at all about the twist. I remember seeing a lot of articles about the twist at the time the episode aired, so this should be covered in the reception section as there was quite a lot of surprised critics.

• Some reactions from the cast here [1] and here [2]

• Citation #1 needs the author added
• Citation #10 needs the source and the access date
• Citations #12, #13 needs the access date
• Also, citation #13 is dead. Can you check archive.org to see if it can be resurrected. Otherwise it'll need to be replaced. Best to archive all the web sources whereever possible to protect against link rot.
• Citations #17, #18 and #19 need authors, dates, access dates and sources
• I'm just looking at the use of the sources, and the Vanity Fair article has some more useful information which isn't in the article. Specifically, the part where they talk about the push-back from Cersei's body double because of the age difference, and van Houten's reaction to the twist would be something good to include as well.
• You also need to include something about the preview expectations that Jon Snow would be resurrected and the responses from the creators that he was going to be dead. I've just found some that due to the episode title, had presumed the Melisandre was going to resurrect him at the end of this particular episode. Reactions HBO were published such as here [3]
• Also, the episode had a premiere at the TCL Chinese Theatre [4] - there's gotta be better source out there than this, but this should at least give you the date to look for.
• Came across this [5] which specifies about the 2am UK simulcast which attracted 60,000 viewers.
• Also some interesting stuff about online piracy here [6] and here [7]

Once you've had a chance to work your way through those, ping me back and I'll give it a read through. Placing it on hold for the obligatory 7 days. Miyagawa (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the seven days have now passed and nothing has been done. Therefore I have no choice but to fail the GAN. Miyagawa (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: I know that i'm kinda late on this and that you have failed the GAN review. But I have now done and fixed almost all, if not all of the things you have written above. (That is if I have not missed something). So I would appreciate it if you have another look at the article. Thanks in advance. AffeL (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@AffeL: I don't have any further comments on it, so if everything is resolved, re-nominate it and I'll promote on this basis. Miyagawa (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Just so you know. I have re-nominated it as you said. AffeL (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2016

@AffeL: Great. It's actually linked back to this one, but seeing as this is more an extension of that first review, I dare say that's probably correct. Based on the above modifications being made, I'm happy this now meets the GA criteria and can be passed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)