Talk:The Door (Game of Thrones)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for review. I am a fan of the show, but have had limited involvement with it on Wikipedia so I'm not exactly sure how this article compares to the others for the series. Regardless, I see that it has been waiting for a while, so hopefully we can get it through. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Other than the points below, this is a pretty good article. Once you've addressed these, I'll give it another look over. Let me know if you have any issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador, Jclemens, and Drovethrughosts: Hi all. Since starting this review I have realised that the nominator is probably not the most reliable, and won't necessarily work with me to get through this, so if any of you (the top contributors for this article / editors who were aware that this may become an issue) are willing to join in and help out then that would be great. Cheers, adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. I am myself right now focusing most of my energies on the GA backlog drive, and am working on three pending/hold GAs. Looking at the nom's history, I had already mentally given up on these, and was intending to start on Season 2 and work forward from there once I get Season 1 to Good Topic. I'll see what I can do, but my time for this coming weekend is already pretty committed. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, obviously no one is obligated to get involved. I'm just hoping that someone will be able to now that I've committed myself here. I honestly thought Game of Thrones would be a safe bet to get a GA done and dusted reasonably quickly. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:I have alrady fixed the Lead, Reception and a bit in the production section. And btw nothing is wrong with the pic. Don't say that I won't work with you to get through this. - AffeL (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2016

I didn't say that you wouldn't work with me, I was just concerned due to the messages that have been left on your talk page. I saw that you had started fixing the article up, and that's great. The problem with the image in the infobox is that it doesn't have much real world significance, which we sort of need to justify using a part of the series itself. That's why I suggested getting an image from the Hodor scene, since a whole lot of this article (and the episode's title) are about that scene, and so can back up our use of it.

Keep working away at it, and anyone else can help out if they want. Then, when you think you've covered everything just let me know here and I'll have another look at it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have given the plot section a bit of a c/e myself. It is now at a much better length. I also see that my other points have/are being addressed, and that there is interest in improving/maintaining the quality of this article, so I'm going to go ahead and promote the article now. Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead - "Done"

• There shouldn't be any references in the lead, as it ideally is just an overview of what is already sourced in the body of the article. The first and third references can just be removed, as that information is already sourced in the body, but for the second reference (for the air date) you will have to move it and that information to the body. Somewhere like the ratings section would be fine ("...on its initial viewing, on May 22...").
• The lead should cover more of the production of the episode then just the brief prosthetics line. I would move that line to the first paragraph, and add some stuff there about the Hodor reveal (coming from Martin) and maybe the filming of that end sequence. It just needs enough to be a bit more balanced in terms of an overview for the whole article.
• The Emmy line should be moved up to the end of the third paragraph, so all the reception stuff is together and there aren't any unnecessary one-sentence paragraphs.

Plot

• I know that this show is pretty big and complicated, so I can understand if people have been giving it a bit more leeway than usual in terms of plot-length, but I do think that this is a bit too long. At the moment, episode article plot summaries are expected to be between 200 and 500 words, and that is likely to be changed soon down to a hard limit of 350 words. Even film plot summaries are supposed to be limited to 700 words, which is a lot less then what is here. I think you could get this down to that 700, if not 500 words, without losing too much. Just give it a good copy edit and see how you go.

I attempted to cut as much of the plot as I could. Calibrador (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Production - "Done"

• There are a few places here where you specify where the cast and crew are giving the information (e.g. the episode featurettes, the Hollywood Reporter). It is better/more encyclopaedic if you just give the information, and let the reader find out more about the interview format by checking out the sources themselves.
• There are a lot of quotes in this section. It isn't too much of a problem, because there is a lot of good information here, but there are a few places where you could probably cut the quotes down a bit, or be a bit more concise by paraphrasing instead.
• You should combine the the Or Monsters and Men line with the paragraph about the Braavosi actors.

Reception - "Done"

• I think you could probably grab a couple more reviews for the critics section (I'm sure there are plenty more good ones out there). Just enough for another paragraph, of similar size to the second one. The rest of the article is just so well detailed and fleshed out, I think this section should be similar.

References - "Done"

• Can you go through all of these and make sure that they have been formatted correctly? Mostly check all the websites: many of them have their own Wikipedia pages which they should link to each time; if the website is part of a magazine or other publication, the tile should be in italics (Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, etc.) and so goes in the 'work=' paramtre; otherwise (IGN, IMDb) they should go in the 'publisher=' parametre; the videos on HBO GO are only available to certain people, whereas everybody should be able to see them on YouTube, so I recommend you switch the sources over to those versions—I'm pretty sure the videos will have the same content; the references should also all include the archive parametres.

Images - "Done"

• These all look good, especially the Night King one, but I think the image in the infobox might need to be replaced. We are only supposed to use screenshots from the actual episode if we have a good, backed up reason to do so. I suggest you replace it with an image from the Hodor scene, and note the production/reception stuff about Hodor very briefly in the image caption.