Talk:Battle of the Bastards/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to quickfail the article right now. It isn't the fault of the editors involved in the recent expansion - you've all done a really great job. Unfortunately the episode is a victim of it's own success - which in turn means that it cannot possibly meet the stability requirement of the Good Article criteria right now.
Outside of this, you need to take a look at the lead as it is rather abridged for an article of this size. There should be at least something about the plot of the episode in there - perhaps about half the length of the section recently removed from the lead. There is also currently nothing in relation to the entire Production section in the lead either - I would have thought that would be a paragraph in itself.
Make those changes and give it a couple of weeks for the IP edits to calm down, and then please do come back and renominate this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just leaving a quick comment. (I did not nominate the article, though I am one of the primary contributors) The plot was removed from the lead by someone who does not know how an article is supposed to be formatted according to WP:Lead. As soon as I saw this, I re-added the plot and cleaned it up a bit. Calibrador (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that - but those are exactly the sorts of problems that'll occur with such a popular article right now but in a couple of weeks time will have died down to a massive extent. If it doesn't, then page protection can always be applied for and then the GAN can re-start. In fact, I'm happy to do the proper review when the renomination comes so that this hasn't delayed anything. Just ping me when it's back at GAN. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about now. It's been a couple of weeks and edits have died down to a massice extent. I think it deserves to be a good article. AffeL (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2016
- Yep, the edits have calmed down now. You'd be safe to nominate on the stability front now. Miyagawa (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you asking for a good article status when someone is complaining to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fan bias towards article and it was only a few days ago when there were mutual incorrect accusations of vandalism [1] [2]? And where decent edits are being reverted without any reason being given [3]? (The version reverted to seemed to be unsourced, not surprising since at the time that part exclusively relied on primary sources, and also seemed to include unnecessary details about and old score. A non-primary source was added soon after [4] however that source was written when the old score was still correct so didn't suggest a significance of this old score after it was no longer valid. Frankly I don't really care enough to argue simply pointing out since this wasn't vandalism but a change which at first glance made the article better, some explanation as to why it was felt useful to mention this old score rather than a blanket revert would have been helpful.) In other words, how is the article stable when there are apparently unresolved issues which given the state of discussion, don't look like they are going to be resolve anytime soon? Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- You'll be better off taking these issues to the main talk page. Compared to the way the article was shortly after the broadcast of the episode, it is now stable. This was what I was looking for, although I admit I failed to notice the edit war ongoing, which would also cause it to fail a GAN. It is best to close down this conversation on this nomination page now, and take this to the main talk page for the article. Of course, you can nominate at anytime for GAN, and I'm not about to close it down for a second time (although someone else might), but I'd recommend resolving these conflicts first before someone does so. Miyagawa (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you asking for a good article status when someone is complaining to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fan bias towards article and it was only a few days ago when there were mutual incorrect accusations of vandalism [1] [2]? And where decent edits are being reverted without any reason being given [3]? (The version reverted to seemed to be unsourced, not surprising since at the time that part exclusively relied on primary sources, and also seemed to include unnecessary details about and old score. A non-primary source was added soon after [4] however that source was written when the old score was still correct so didn't suggest a significance of this old score after it was no longer valid. Frankly I don't really care enough to argue simply pointing out since this wasn't vandalism but a change which at first glance made the article better, some explanation as to why it was felt useful to mention this old score rather than a blanket revert would have been helpful.) In other words, how is the article stable when there are apparently unresolved issues which given the state of discussion, don't look like they are going to be resolve anytime soon? Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, the edits have calmed down now. You'd be safe to nominate on the stability front now. Miyagawa (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- What about now. It's been a couple of weeks and edits have died down to a massice extent. I think it deserves to be a good article. AffeL (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2016
- Thanks for fixing that - but those are exactly the sorts of problems that'll occur with such a popular article right now but in a couple of weeks time will have died down to a massive extent. If it doesn't, then page protection can always be applied for and then the GAN can re-start. In fact, I'm happy to do the proper review when the renomination comes so that this hasn't delayed anything. Just ping me when it's back at GAN. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, submitting it for GA review while the article is still a dumpster fire was a piker mistake, Calibrador. There's no way in hell the Lede is okay, and now, there is back and forth fan-gushing about whether the episode was greeted with widespread acclaim or if virgins were sacrificed in its universal honor, or something. Seriously, why the frak are you in such a hurry? Until the article is stable (read: no outstanding disagreements) the article will quickfail every single time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did not submit it, and please be more WP:Civil. Calibrador (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Considering that all I really said here was that you made a beginner's mistake, I think you got off easy. If you don't like my choice of words (none of which were actually used to reference you), go find somewhere else to edit or grow thicker skin. When you act better, you will be treated better. Not a moment before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)