Talk:The Kingsroad

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Kingsroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets see:

• Add Alt to the image
• Improve lead with production and reception information
• Their are parts of the production tat don't have refrences, one of them being in the writing section.
• Also their seem to be alot of unreliable sources like fansites and blogs. Thease don't work.

I'll give it a week to decide if I fail it or pass it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Adding "alt" descriptions to images is not required of the good article criteria (or even the featured article criteria).--BelovedFreak 12:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed but its always good to have it plus as the reviewer I can ask that the nominator adds the ALT. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can, but it has nothing to do with whether the article is listed or not.--BelovedFreak 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can I get an extension? Now that we've got Lord Snow squared away, I find myself busy with other things. I should be able to get to this article by this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please look at the references on both of these nominated. Lord Snow should not have been passed, it has only got blogs and fansites supporting the content it contains and this is exactly the same. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Read the other GA review, but I'll summarize the discussion here:

    1) Not every source in an article, even a GA, must be reliable--just those on things challenged or likely to be challenged. Think of it this way: if a statement is OK unsourced per WP:V, it's certainly OK unreliably sourced.

    2) The sites that remain either belong to the book's author (an acceptable source per SELFPUB), or are those endorsed by the author (ditto). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

    Note that the governing text for this is from WP:WIAGA 2.b. "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" If you have any specific issues with how any source is being used, I'd appreciate it if you'd give specific feedback, because general feedback contrary to WIAGA does not help me fix anything. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Despite not receiving specific feedback on which sources are reliable "enough", I've gone through and swapped sources, added alt tag, expanded the lead. Oh, I also went through and copyedited the entire article for clarity. Please provide additional feedback if you believe this does not yet meet GA criteria. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pass. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong actress?

Guys, I believe that in the sentence: "While the recently-promised Prince Joffrey (Jack Gleeson) and Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner) are walking along the river,(...)" it links to the wrong Sophie Turner. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.199.221.158 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Westeros.org is the subject of a current RSN discussion; do not delete it from this article until the matter is settled

@Jack Sebastian:, please revert your deletion on The Kingsroad. The fact that Westeros.org is used in a GA-rated article has been cited as precedent in an ongoing RSN discussion and deleting it is misleading. Whether you are doing it deliberately or not, your actions may bias the results of the RSN and render them non-valid. This content has been here for years without causing any trouble; it can wait a while longer.

So far, both respondents to the RSN have said that Westeros.org is RS per WP:SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you might want to re-read that RSN section, for the discussion is still ongoing, and at least one other user is questioning the noteworthiness of using fancruft from fansites. And I'd point out that you asked me to not make changes to subject articles being considered in RSN discussions. Maybe follow your own advice. So no, I will not be allowing you to add information currently being debated elsewhere so you can seek to unduly influence RSN. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They both said it was reliable. They also said there were other issues, but the issue at hand is whether or not it is reliable. Other issues have been addressed by the treatment of this material in sources such as Slate, AV Club, i09, Forbes etc. etc. and by the fact that the GA reviewers here didn't think this content was inappropriate enough to remove.

I am not adding a new Westeros.org reference tag. I restored the one that you removed. If it is not in the right place or something, then by all means, move it back to its original location. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure which RSN you are reading, but I am not seeing support. In any case, stop forum-shopping. Stick to the RSN, stop edit-warring and trust the process. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to trust the process, then stop undermining the process. Quit trying to hide precedent, scare off new participants and bias matters in your favor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?

There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like, "In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI)." This article had one in its writing section until a short while ago. The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Kingsroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721220621/http://grrm.livejournal.com/168457.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/168457.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307182506/http://www.cultureaddicthistorynerd.com/2011/06/locations-of-thrones-northern-ireland/ to http://www.cultureaddicthistorynerd.com/2011/06/locations-of-thrones-northern-ireland/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://grrm.livejournal.com/194551.html?thread=11944695

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)