# Talk:Eastwatch

but she and Sam do not realize the importance of the passage Has anyone currently in the show said that the passage is important? If not then it is WP:OR and should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed by Hijiri88 with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it definitely belongs in the article -- in an "Analysis" section cited to secondary sources like this one that points out how the annulment of Rhaegar's marriage to Elia, which had already borne children, doesn't actually make sense and would have retroactively bastardized his three children. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Should future episodes feature the passage as an important plot point (e.g. by establishing Jon's parentage), should it be readded? Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Only if it is mentioned by a reliable source, or if a future episode explicitly mentions them talking about the passage. Them merely being aware of the marriage or the true parentage of Jon would not be enough in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not here to oppose what Hijiri88 has done, but his analysis of the article's situation makes me question the credibility and accuracy of dozens of other articles about movies and TV series here on Wikipedia. Now I'm a little bit confused that why the sources are considered primary. They are mostly reliable websites but as they include interviews with the cast and crew they are being labeled as such; right? My question is that how are we supposed to write a section about producing the series then? Obviously the information can only be taken from the directors, producers and actors themselves. Is there any other way that we can gather information about these matters? I'll be glad if Hijiri88 clarifies what he actually believes is necessary to be done with this article. I think discussing the issues and finding a way to improve them is the best option. Keivan.fTalk 08:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Interviews count as WP:PRIMARY as per Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-3.  RE: "how are we supposed to write a section about producing the series then?"—if you don't have appropriate source, don't.  Given how popular the series is, is very likely there will be appropriate sources someday—books will be published on it, no doubt.  The episode just came out, and at Wikipedia there is WP:NODEADLINE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
his analysis of the article's situation makes me question the credibility and accuracy of dozens of other articles about movies and TV series here on Wikipedia That's good. Questioning credibility and accuracy of articles is what all Wikipedians should be doing constantly. Heck, I would even go so far as to say we should take the same stance toward sources, with the obvious exception of books and articles from university presses written by people with credentials in the relevant field. Interviews, press releases and the like, by those involved with the topic of the article, are WP:PRIMARY sources, and per the same policy large segments of articles being based on said primary sources is a problem. It's very disturbing to me that a number of such articles have apparently passed WP:GAN: before being nominated, they should have been tagged, and the tags not removed until more secondary and tertiary sources could be located; articles with maintenance tags are autofailed at both GAN and FAC. But that's all WP:OSE; with regard to this article right now, CT and I are right that the majority of sources currently cited in the article are primary ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note also that the article The Queen's Justice had almost the same problem, which was discussed here and here. For all I know The Spoils of War (Game of Thrones) might have the same problem, but it's sources aren't clearly lampshaded as interviews in their titles; with TQJ and this, all I had to do was click on the sources that looked like interviews to verify that they were, but with that one I'm a bit more skeptical and decided it wasn't worth my time clicking on links for which there's a fair probability that they are not simple interviews. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for excessive length/detail since November.  I just edited most of the geographic subsections, reducing the length from 760 words to 647.  Although this exceeds MOS:TVPLOT's recommendation of no more than 400 words by a significant margin, I believe this summary is at a reasonable length and level of detail for this hourlong television episode featuring plots taking place in six locations, with an unusual amount of separation between characters in the same location and connections between characters spending most of the episode in different locations.  There was a lot in this episode.  Anyway, I'd like to remove that specific tag at this time.  Is there any objection?  Agreement?  --DavidK93 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no further comment, I deleted that tag.  --DavidK93 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A passage in the "At Winterfell" subsection of the "Plot" section of the article formerly read:

Littlefinger allows Arya to watch him hide an old raven scroll with the intention that she will find it; she does, and it is the letter Cersei forced Sansa to write after King Robert died, asking Robb to swear fealty to King Joffrey.
I edited it to:

Littlefinger allows Arya to watch him hide the raven scroll Cersei forced Sansa to write after King Robert died, asking Robb to swear fealty to King Joffrey; Arya obtains and reads it.
I made the change, per my edit summary, both to shorten the passage and to remove what I called "speculation," although in Wikipedia parlance would have been better termed interpretation of the primary source, which was the episode itself.  I was the main author of the first version of the text, and I realized that, although I had understood that Littlefinger intended for Arya to find the scroll, I was documenting my own unsourced thoughts in the Wikipedia article, thus violating WP:NOR by interpreting the contents of a primary source.  TedEdwards reverted the change, saying in his edit summary "Not speculation; you can tell he wanted her to find it from his facial and body language." The fact that his justification was that "you can tell," I believe supports the idea that this content was interpretative and thus original research unsuitable as article content.  I think the second version is superior, both because it is shorter without losing any important information, and because it omits a claim to identify the unstated intentions of the character Littlefinger. It still acknowledges that Littlefinger's actions are deliberate.  I'd like to re-implement the change.  --DavidK93 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no further comment, I reverted the change.  --DavidK93 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: @TAnthony: @Keivan.f: I strongly feel that this article easily meets the criteria for Good article status. What do you think about this? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Optimistic One I've only looked at the plot so far, and I've made some changes to it, but for the article to likely get GA status; 1) the plot has to be easy to read and understand (make it to the point, and only include essential details to understanding the topic of the article), 2) avoid words/phrase/terms that only fans would understand (e.g. "Through ravens' eyes" sounds like a metaphor with unknown meaning even though it literally means "through ravens' eyes", what does "gold cloak" mean to a non-fan) or if you have to use them, explain them, and 3) has good spelling, grammar and other obvious things. Also remember an article is designed for people who know nothing about the subject, no fans. So I advise you make sure the plot follows these things. --TedEdwards 21:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@TedEdwards: Thanks for the help, I've made a little improvement on the plot. Have you looked at the rest of the page? The Optimistic One (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I have, and I corrected/clarified anything I noticed, but there wasn't that much wrong. About the plot, I've swapped two sections round, so Gendry's storyline is easier to follow. --TedEdwards 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! I shall get someone to review the article. Thanks! The Optimistic One (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @The Rambling Man: Could you two by any chance review the article? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eastwatch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I would say the lead is a little too long, for an article of this size I'd expect no more than three paras (see WP:LEAD). ✔
You don't seem have addressed this?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Any reason Sansa isn't linked in the lead. ✔
"seasons[2][3]. " refs after punc. ✔
What is the reason for the proseline in the Plot section?  Those mini-paragraphs could be merged to form one suitably sized para per section? ✔
Be consistent with how you link "King Joffrey", i.e. either King is or is not inside the link.  But be consistent. ✔
Avoid overlinking, e.g. you have "second season" linked in both the Writing and the Casting section.  Hollywood Reporter is also overlinked in the Filming section... check for others. ✔
"'Look, your character ... the line.'"  why the two sets of quotes?+*" Christmas of 2015" no need for "of". ✔
"including ... among others" one of these is redundant. ✔
"For Daenerys Targaryen's return ..." this para is unreferenced. ✔
You don't seem have addressed this?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"Additionally, Shakman revealed..." ditto. ✔
You don't seem have addressed this?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Apologies, I didn't initially see this and assumed that the lead was the only outstanding issue. The Optimistic One (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"which Peckinpah wrote the screenplay for and directed"->"for which Peckinpah wrote the screenplay and directed" ✔
"was viewed by 10.72 million viewers" repetitive, what about "was watched by.."? ✔
"which was significantly higher" really?  6% higher is "significantly higher"? ✔
"to that point... to date" one of these is redundant. ✔
"on its channel." whose?  on that channel perhaps? ✔
Check ref titles, no spaced hyphens, e.g. ref 10. ✔
Rotten Tomatoes currently says 8.07 from 63 reviews, including three negative reviews, worth noting that the acclaim wasn't universal... ✔
That's it from me, I'm putting it on hold while we work through the above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Mission accomplished! The Optimistic One (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The Optimistic One, there are a few notes above where you don't seem to have addressed my comments, it's easier for me and you I think to respond individually to each of the comments so we know you've completed them, or we agree they don't need to be done?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I've done the vast majority of them. Are you pleased with the lead section overall? The Optimistic One (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead is still four paragraphs, it should be three max. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done The Optimistic One (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There are still other outstanding comments I noticed above, please check each comment off to ensure we've covered everything. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The Optimistic One hello, are you going to address each comment individually so we can check you've covered them all?  I can still see that a para in there hasn't got a reference, as I noted above...  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I've ticked above what tasks I've done. I can't find a source at the moment because my laptop is getting repaired; I'm using my phone and Xbox One at the moment. Perhaps Another Believer could help me out with this one. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 Sorry, but I'm not familiar with this article and have not been following along here. Above I see there's perhaps concern over the length of the lead, which does not seem problematic to me, and perhaps also a problem with sourcing for the paragraph starting "For Daenerys Targaryen's return...", which I don't see in the article. So, can someone please clarify what's still needed, or hopefully User:The Optimistic One can just finish this off ASAP? I'm sure User:The Rambling Man will allow the time needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've sorted everything bar the two quotes that are unreferenced. They're in the filming section. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no rush.  And the lead wasn't too long it had too many paragraphs.  It's okay now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Are you satisfied with the article? The Optimistic One (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Optimistic One better, just need to fix those bare URLs in the references now and I'll done one final check, good work so far. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll just tag it. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Weird, why wouldn't you have fixed that yourself?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let a bot do it instead. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is done now and I'm promoting.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! The Optimistic One (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)