# Talk:Daenerys Targaryen

LuK3, I think that should be moved to the Reception section. The "General" subsection of the Reception section, which I had meaning to expand, needs more on the other seasons. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, the current political leadership material only focuses on her villain arc, when that villain arc did not come until season 8...and abruptly in season 8. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I incorporated the material in this way. I think it fits better there, first commenting on the positives of her leadership and in relation to feminism and then commenting on the darker aspects of her leadership right before the Villain arc section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, I have no problem with you moving it to the "Reaction" section. I think it actually works better in that section. --  LuK3  (Talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Luk3. No need to ping me, by the way, since this page is on my watchlist. I didn't ping you because I know you watch it as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough! This article is looking good for a possible good article nomination in the near future. Do you happen to see major outstanding issues that needs to be addressed? --  LuK3  (Talk) 21:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I wondered if you were preparing it for that. I don't think it's quite close to ready. For example, I noted that the "General" subsection of the Reception section needs more on the other seasons. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem, I'll continue to beef up the section and fix up references. --  LuK3  (Talk) 22:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, LuK3, I think that the article is just about ready for a GA nomination. One might want to contact WP:COPYEDITORS to give it a thorough copyedit first. Also, one can make the case that, per WP:Lead, the character's villainous turn should be mentioned in the third and/or fourth paragraphs of the lead. I considered whether the article should have a "Cultural impact" section, which is where things like using the character as a feminist and other political symbol, and that people named their daughters after her, could go. But that could always be added later. I wouldn't want the section to be unnecessarily created. If created, it should have substantial content, not a little bit of content that can simply be merged into one or more other sections.        
Anatashala, thanks for tweaking and trimming the plot sections. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see that LuK3 nominated it at 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thank-you! There's a possessive 's' to be added in 'Appearance and personality' that I caught just now so I'll tweak that but if there's anything else I can do, please let me know :) I think both you and LuK3 did some great work getting this article ready. I'll also keep my eye open for new material which may work under a "Cultural impact" section if it's added sometime. Anatashala (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the GAN template. A copyedit isn't a bad idea at all, I will list it at WP:GOCER sometime today. Her villainous turn and subsequent fan/critic reactions should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the lead. As of right now, there is a mention of the character as a political symbol in the first paragraph of the "Feminism and evolution as a leader" section. I'll dig a little deeper into sources to see if a separate paragraph/section is needed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be pertinent or if you guys are already aware of this link but I'd like to offer it just in case.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand talks about her unhappiness with Daenerys's turn and why in a short video. But again, not sure if this provides anything additional to the article. Anatashala (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Anatashala. I normally stay away from Twitter as a source per WP:ABOUTSELF but I'll definitely look into different sources regarding reactions to her arc change. Flyer, I've added a mention of the arc turn to the 4th paragraph. Feel free to change/move how you see fit. In addition, I've listed the article at WP:GOCER for a copyedit. --  LuK3  (Talk) 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
LuK3, that's good point about Twitter as a source. I'll remember that for the future and review WP:ABOUTSELF, thanks! I think I've found the original source from NowThisNews (if this site is accepted as a verifiable source) if you found it of any value but again, I don't know if it'll add to the article beyond what's already included. I'll leave that up to you! Thanks again for the tip! Anatashala (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
LuK3, given that it usually takes some time for a GA review to start, you probably didn't have to remove the GA nomination. Then again, it can also take some time for a copyeditor from WP:COPYEDITORS to copyedit the article. And editors aren't always pleased with a copyeditor's work on an article, which can take more time. Anyway, I understand why you removed it. There's also the WP:Good article criteria that requires the article to be stable (no edit warring).
Having a "Cultural impact" section was just a thought. It's something I'd considered before LuK3 started working on the article. I considered it when first expanding the reception section with the feminism symbol/subverts the hero's journey and villain material. I'm in no rush to add one. And a separate section for anything that might be added to it, such as cosplay material, may not be needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
In my experience, a copy edit was very useful both for obvious spelling/grammar/syntax errors but the copyeditor did suggest some content improvements. There is no rush to take this to GAN and it will be some time for a full copy edit to be done. In that time, we could definitely think about adding either another paragraph or Cultural impact section. --  LuK3  (Talk) 12:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Twofingered Typist, awesome work on the copyedit and thank-you so much! I just noticed two minor things! :)
1)"Daenerys befriends Jorah Mormont, an exiled Westerosi knight, who gives her three petrified dragon eggs as a wedding gift." Only because it wasn't Jorah Mormont who gave Dany the eggs but Illyrio Mopatis. Is there a way to word this sentence so it conveys it wasn't Jorah who gifted the dragon eggs to Daenerys? Should Illyrio as the gifter be mentioned?
2)"The Unsullied overwhelm the Sons, and throw spears at Drogon[...]" Only because it now reads like the Unsullied were throwing spears at Drogon rather than the Sons. Would it be okay to modify this sentence to read, "The Unsullied overwhelm the Sons, and the Sons throw spears at Drogon[...]"? Or is there a better way of wording this?
Thank-you so much!! I think you did a great job and I picked up some valuable tips from the edits you made! Anatashala (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Anatashala, for your first sentence, I think it would be confusing to include Illyrio with Jorah as they are two separate events. It could read something like Daenerys befriends Jorah Mormont, an exiled Westerosi knight. At her wedding, Daenerys is given three petrified dragon eggs by  Illyrio Mopatis. You could probably include his relationship or Daenerys, that's completely up to you.
As for The Unsullied and the Sons, it could read The Unsullied overwhelm the Sons, who were throwing spears at Drogon[...] or something to that effect. I also nominated the article at GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions. --  LuK3  (Talk) 02:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Your phrasing suggestions work perfectly for me, LuK3! I'll add those in :) Anatashala (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
These work fine. I made one minor tweak. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Twofingered Typist, when you remove "stated", is that just a personal preference? I ask because the term is interchangeable with "said", which you do use, and it's fine per WP:SAID. The only time I can see "said" or "stated" not being a good option is when "wrote" (another option you use) is more accurate. I also see that you use "felt." I use that occasionally, but not as often as "said", "stated", and "wrote" when relaying commentary on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Frozen: "Stated" was used almost exclusively in that section as I recall. The idea was to try to avoid repetition. Also, in my mind "stated" has a formality about it that I don't associate with "said". (I guess that falls under personal preference.) Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)