Talk:Blackwater (Game of Thrones)

Observation vs. original research

I just reverted this change.

Because the episode itself serves as its own primary source, it is okay to repeat straight observations so long as they contain no synthesis or interpretation. The statement "Tyrion can be heard whistling the song 'Rains of Castermere' in episode X" is okay for inclusion so long as it is factually accurate. It's no different from saying "In this episode, Sansa tells the Hound, 'You won't hurt me'" using the episode as a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's your interpretation that it's the same song. DonQuixote (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not. I was not the one who first inserted the information. It wouldn't be an interpretation no matter who posted it, though. We just need someone to listen to the song closely enough to tell whether it's the same.
According to your description of your change, you did not delete the information because you believed it was inaccurate but because you believed that it violated WP:OR. It doesn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listening to the song closely enough to tell whether it's the same is an act of original research. That is, analyzing two scenes from two separate episodes and coming to a conclusion about any similarities is synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum) If I were to analyze the two scenes, I'd probably come to the same conclusion, that they are the same song, but that would still be interpretation and synthesis. (Should have made that a little clearer in my first response, and should've used the more objective phrase "an interpration". Sorry about that.) DonQuixote (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying a song is not an interpretation. It is an observation. It is essentially no different from listening to the sounds that come out of people's mouths and identifying the words or looking at the paintings in the background of Rose's dressing room in Titanic and saying "What's she doing with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon?" or looking at a scene and saying "Tyrion and Bronn are present and Varys is in the background." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes observation and interpretation are the same things, particularly when it comes to such things as the identity of music and paintings. Yeah, that bit with the painting was interpretation. The point is that "identifying" something is an act of original research (ie original observation). If you want to be pedantic, we can parrot what's on screen (ogg file of the song, summary of the actions, quoting of dialog, etc.) but anything involving drawing conclusions not stated in any source is synthesis. As you pointed out above, someone might believe the interpretation to be inaccurate, which reinforces the fact that it's an interpretation.
We also have to be careful with these things as identifying any of the above as notable is in itself synthesis. So that's a double whammy right there. This is all good for the trivia section of IMDb, but it's unencyclopedic. DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observations and interpretations can both be inaccurate; it has no bearing on whether a given act is one or the other. Saying "'Rains of Castamere' is the Lannister theme song" is interpretation but "'The Rains of Castamere' was heard in these two episodes" is not. It's starting to look like we could use an outside opinion on this. Are you up for an RfC from WP:OR?
This article has a section on music. Mentioning that the song that featured in this episode was also used in "The North Remembers" is not out of line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: If the content is restored, it should specify that Tyrion whistles the song in the episode "The North Remembers," which is the second season premiere, not the second episode of the second season.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion is always a good idea (peer review). Also, keep in mind that deeming this noteable to include in the article is in itself sythesis (ie why is it important anyway?). DonQuixote (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the question of whether this counts as OR is interesting to me by itself. As for whether it's notable, consider it if it were phrased like this: "Although this is the first episode to feature the song heavily, it does appear in previous episodes. For example, Tyrion can be heard whistling it in the season premiere, 'The North Remembers.'" If the song is notable, then why not the history of its use? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Original research

Does the identification of a song by its melody constitute original research? One editor removed the statement "[Character] can be heard whistling [specific song]" as OR, saying that the identification of the song counts as interpretation. Another editor restored the statement, saying that the identification of the song counts as observation. Both parties are treating the episode itself as a primary source. (The editor who inserted the material in the first place could not be reached for comment.) 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment The whole issue of original research can be sidestepped by finding a source for the fact that Tyrion was whistling the same song. cinemablend has an article which does just that. Unfortunately it does not mention in which episode Tyrion was whistling, but there may be more sources out there. Yoenit (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's now back in stating the character and the song but not the episode or in-universe circumstances. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yoenit nailed it in one. As I see it, the problems here are twofold: first, the identifying that the song is indeed the same song that occurred elsewhere is a comparison between two different congs and deriving a conclusion that they are the same. It is almost a precise example of synthesis and, of course, not an allowable course of action by the editors of this encyclopedia. Secondly - and vastly more important: where is the reference identifying this, or event that it is worthy of note? Without a cite, this is placing undue importance on absent-minded whistling. Get a cite, or there's no basis for its inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling issue and meaning of the song

With respect to this, Tyrion's whistling is not the issue. I removed only the text "Although this is the first episode to feature the song heavily, it has appeared elsewhere in the series." This is at best redundant, and at worst misleading, as it could be read to mean (incorrectyl) that the song has appeared in even more episodes. Also, "to feature the song heavily" is inelegant prose, and also misleading, as two appearances of the song are hardly "featuring heavily".  Sandstein  00:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of those words is to keep the focus on the episode itself. I can picture readers coming to this article to find out if this is the first episode in which "Rains" appears.
To that effect, how do you feel about, "Although 'Rains' receives more screen time in 'Blackwater' than in earlier episodes, it is not the first to include the song in any form. For example..."? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's misleading to talk about "earlier episodes" in the plural because as far as I know the only other appearance of the song in the series is when Tyrion (maybe) whistles it in the season opener. It's also not necessary to add all these words that do not really add anything to the reader's understanding; conciseness is a virtue. It's enough just to note that the song had the one other appearance (and maybe that's even excessive here, and should go on the Music of Game of Thrones page).  Sandstein  06:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but let's not put conciseness over readability. I've smoothed out the transition. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that the second paragraph crosses the line into synthesis, as it takes the prevalence of the song in the novels and compares its usage to that in the series. At best, we need to cite someone who makes that comparison (since we as editors cannot do so). At worst, its affording an exceptional amount of undue weight as to the importance of the song in the tv series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I could see why the line explicitly stating how often the song is used in the books might not be necessary, 1. that the song is based on one from the book (rather than written for the TV show) and 2. what the song is about are both relevant. I could get behind using the novels as sources for this. The main question here is will the readers come here to find out what that song they heard in the episode was, what it was about, and whether it was written for the show or a medieval madrigal or a remake of a John Lennon song. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "Tyrion whistled 'Rains'" would violate WP:OR if no secondary source had been found

It's not a question of "is it necessary", it's a question of "is this article stating it first"...that is, original research. One way of thinking about it is that wikipedia isn't a place where people come to find out about one song or another, it's a place that summarizes what reliable sources have to say about one song or another. It's a way of controlling undue weight, synthesis, interpretation, POV, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is absolutely the place where people come to find out about one song or another.
How is it synthesis to say that the song is from the books? I can look in the book and see that it is there. The book serves as a primary source. That's like saying that the Wiki article must not say "Sansa Stark appears in this episode" unless a secondary source reports it. WP: OR allows us to look at the primary source, in this case the episode, and say "There she is." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. It's synthesis to say that the song is important. It's synthesis to interpret the meaning of the lyrics. It's synthesis to say that the song appeared in a previous episode sans lyrics. These require reliable sources. And yes, people come to wikipedia to find out about this song or that, but that's not the attitude that editors should take. To avoid synthesis or interpretation or original research, editors should consider whether a reliable source said it first or whether it's original to the article or whether it's just a summary of the primary source. DonQuixote (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But no one has said "The song is important." The article reads "The song appears in a previous episode" and "The song is from the books," both of which are facts. I asked why you think the repetition of these facts are synthesis. No one is looking at the lyrics and guessing that they are about the rebellion of House Reyne. The books say that they're about the rebellion of House Reyne.
As for whether one melody is the same as another, a melody is a series of pitches, not a series of ideas. We can listen to them and tell whether they're the same or different just like we do with words. The fact that some people are better at this than others changes nothing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing a melody by its very nature is original research. Connecting two episodes together via this observation is synthesis, as noted above by other editors. And that's the point. You can't get around that fact. We can't be the first ones to make this connection, we need some third party (secondary source) to that before we do...even though it might be 100% true and factual. See WP:Verifiability. DonQuixote (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If recognizing a song is synthesis, then recognizing a word or a face would be synthesis too. It's a sound, no different from any other. WP:V does not mention songs.
Back to my previous question, why do you think that "This song is from the books" is synthesis? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This song is from the books" isn't synthesis. Recognizing a tune in one episode being the same as a tune in another is sythesis because it depends on interpretation. See comments above. And WP:V mentions that something being true, which is what you're arguing, isn't important as something being verifiable...which means that arguing that something is (or seems to be) factual, which is an argument that you've been using, doesn't mean much. That's why I recommended that you review WP:V. DonQuixote (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that being true does not make it verifiable. However, being perfectly audible in the episode does make it verifiable.
This article has a large section, "Plot," that contains information observed in the episode. Are you claiming that it should be removed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Let's see if we can streamline this:

1. You think that recognizing a song is OR and I don't. Of the two people who weighed in on the RfC, one of them agreed with you and the other did not state an opinion on the matter.
2. I would like it if you explained why you think recognizing a song is different from recognizing anything else, like a face or a word.
3. It looked like you were saying that you considered the statements "this song is from the books" and "this song is about the defeat of House Reyne" to be OR, but you do not really believe/were not really saying this.
4. Because a secondary source for the statement "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'The Rains of Castamere' in a previous episode" has been found, there is not at this time a valid objection to its inclusion on the grounds of OR, regardless of whether recognizing songs by ear is truly OR or not.
5. Do you have any other objections to its inclusion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue and WP:Verifiability as these are good guidelines. The point is that arguing that something isn't original research or isn't synthesis or alternatively arguing that something is a fact won't get you anywhere in a debate...particularly since it introduces a bit of WP:POV (either on your part or the other person or both). Citing a WP:RS avoids all. And that's what I've been trying to explain. (And I accept the source cited as being reliable.)
As for it being original research, to quote you "We can listen to them and tell whether they're the same or different just like we do with words"...the act of "listening to them and telling whether they're the same" by its very nature is original research--that is, an act original to you (or whoever was doing it). The result of it can be completely accurate and factual, but again, the question is one of verifiability over truth (WP:V). DonQuixote (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it more simply, you need someone else (preferably a reliable source) to verify your observation. DonQuixote (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I reviewed all WP:OR and WP:Synthesis before requesting the RfC and WP:NPOV has nothing to do with this. You and I do not seem to be reading WP:OR the same way. It does not state whether recognizing a song, face or object is synthesis or not, nor do any of its other statements or examples make this clear. There is no "A and B therefore C" in the statement "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'Rains of Castamere.'" There's just "A."
2. Yeonit found a source weeks ago. The issue of whether or not the text is OR is moot. This discussion that we are having is, for the purpose of the inclusion of the text "Tyrion can be heard whistling the song in a previous episode," is academic.
3. If the act of listening to a melody for the purpose of identifying it is OR, then why wouldn't identifying words or other sounds also be OR? We'd have to delete the whole "Plot" section as OR. Or let me give you another example: By your argument, if someone recites "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" on a TV show, then the Wikipedia article may not say that this is part of the band of brothers speech from Shakespeare's Henry V. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or let's get more concrete. By your reasoning, the statement "Unlike all previous episodes, Blackwater does not follow the parallel storylines of the characters outside of King's Landing" is OR because the person who inserted it presumably looked at the episode and observed that it did not follow parallel storylines and remembered that all previous episodes did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Performing an original analysis is by definition original research. Recognizing something is analysis.

2. Yes, that one's academic, but as I've said, I'm trying to explain to you what original research is so that you'll avoid situations like this in future. Simply...an observation is made. A reliable source is required to verify the observation. Arguing about it being factual, etc. doesn't strengthen support for the observation (it most often than not weakens it). So, as stated above by the other editors involved, the best solution is to cite a reliable source.

3. Believe it or not, recognizing "We few, we happy few..." as a reference to Henry V is considered original research--in fact, many of those "references" have been culled from wikipedia articles for that very reason. The best course of action in those instances have been to cite a reliable source that makes that connection. Again, it's a case of WP:Verifiability. Please review that guide.

And finally, yep "Unlike all previous episodes..." is considered original research too. And similarly, many of those same types of observations have been culled from wikipedia articles for lack of citation of reliable sources. Again, I recommend that you review the above recommended guides. DonQuixote (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting me by claiming that I have not read the guidelines. As I have told you repeatedly, I am quite familiar with WP:OR and it does not make the claims that you seem to believe that it makes. You are reading things into WP:OR that are either not explicitly stated or not there at all.
1. Why do you think that recognizing something is an analysis? If I recognize your face, I say "That's DonQ." If I claim that your expression appears happy or sad, that's an analysis. Saying "Tyrion whistled 'Rains of Castamere' happily" is analysis, but "Tyrion whistled 'Rains of Castamere'" is not. It simply describes what happened, just as we say "Daenyeris and Jorah Mormont went to the House of the Undying." It is simply what happened in the episode.
2. So far, the only thing you've done is say, "observation is original research," but you haven't explained why you believe this. Recognizing a string of pitches that form a melody is no different from recognizing a string of vowels and consonants that form a word. EDIT: You've also said that you believe it is original research to claim that a piece of information is important, but the article does not make this claim. You've also seemed to say that you believe it's original research to claim "this song is from the books" and "this song is about the defeat of House Reyne."
3. Can you cite any source that supports your belief that recognizing phrases such as "We few, we happy few" is considered original research on Wikipedia? I've been over WP:OR et al. repeatedly and there is nothing in there that makes any such claim. Better yet, can you point to the part of any WP: policy that makes you think that this sort of thing would be original research?
If your reasoning holds, then we would have to delete the entire "plot" section for lack of secondary sources that state which character appears in which scene and who said what when, and that, to put it mildly, seems excessive. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this issue over at WT:OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OR: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for...anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." (emphasis mine)
Also, discussions such as Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Minor issue at Kings (U.S. TV series) and Talk:42 (Doctor Who)#Solaris, X-Men. DonQuixote (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say this over at our argument in valar morghulis? If not, then, the sources for the information "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'Rains of Castamere' in a previous episode'" is the episode "The North Remembers" itself and the secondary source that was provided weeks ago.
Look, you think that straight observations from primary sources are OR and I don't. Unless you can point to a WP policy that supports your position, and so far you haven't, then you're not going to convince me otherwise.
The discussion at Kings is about whether an article may state what something that happens in the television show symbolizes without a separate source, specifically whether the Kings chef Abner a parallel for the Biblical chef Abner. That's got nothing to do with our discussion. We aren't talking about what Tyrion's whistling "Castamere" symbolizes, only whether or not it happened, which is a straight observation. That's no different from saying "Abner is wearing a chef's hat in this scene."
With the Dr. Who discussion, the issue isn't whether "These people shoot lasers out of their eyes and so does Cyclops from X-men" is OR—it isn't—but rather whether that statement is relevant. No claims are being made that the monsters on Who were based on Cyclops or inspired by Cyclops. In fact, no opinion or position is expressed at all. "These people shoot lasers out of their eyes" is sourced in the Who episode (A), "Cyclops does too" is sourced in X-men comics (B). There's an A and a B but no "therefore C." Now that is similar to our situation. "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'Rains of Castamere'" is an A, but there is no B or therefore C. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this bit
"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."
As to the other discussions, there have been many of which those are are examples. The basic points are that you can't make connections between two things without straying into original research: whether a connection between a whistled but unnamed song in one episode and another or whether between a line from Shakespeare and a phrase of dialoge that resembles it or whether between optical laser beams, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'Rains of Castamere'" is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that any educated person without specialist knowledge would be able to verify (assuming that this person is not deaf). It involves no analysis, synthesis or interpretation. In this case, the person does have to pay attention to the song rather closely, but that's not the same as needing specialist knowledge or performing an analysis.
The statement "Tyrion can be heard whistling 'Rains of Castamere'" doesn't make any connection between two points. As I said earlier, there's no "B" or "therefore C." There's only "A." Saying "To be or not to be. That is the question" is from Hamlet isn't analysis or interpretation. It's just true.
As for the Cyclops issue, if the article had read, "The monsters in Who shoot laser beams out of their eyes and so does Cyclops from X-men, so they must have been inspired by Cyclops from X-men," then that would have been OR, but "These monsters shoot lasers" and "So does Cyclops" are both sourced. There is an issue as to whether the information is relevant, but that's not a matter of OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realized the point that I was missing. Thanks for helping me learn something new. It's irrelevant whether or not the above is original research. The basic point is that when something is challenged as original research, it isn't constructive to debate whether or not something is original research, etc., rather it's more productive to just find a reliable source that verfies the observation. That is, arguing that something isn't a reliable source is pointless, it's better to just go out and find a reliable source that makes the same observation. I'll keep this in mind. Again, thanks for helping me learn something new. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. You will notice that that's exactly what we did. We asked for another opinion, and Yeonit supplied a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, there's a similar discussion that just started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#New Series soundtracks - OR?. DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'll check it out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro memoria

[1] from GQ.com could be used as an additional source.  Sandstein  22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Oathkeeper

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackwater (Game of Thrones). 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/20110609013018/http://grrm.livejournal.com/219821.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/219821.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603160241/http://grrm.livejournal.com/219080.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/219080.html

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) 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackwater (Game of Thrones)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

I cannot review for copyright right now (Earwig is down), though I intend to. If a nominator who had GAs had sent this up, I would be quickfailing. However, I don't think that's the right call for a first-time nominator when the prose is salvageable and they have yet to experience the GA process. What you need to learn is how not to attribute motive that is unsaid in the sources. There are a few refs of questionable quality to tackle, as well. 7-day hold to Askarion, possibly more needed. You will be pinged again when the Earwig review comes back. Please ping me when edits have been made to resolve these concerns. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review! As embarrassing as it is to have almost quickfailed, I'm grateful for the opportunity to continue with the process. I've made the necessary copy changes, and I will be rereading the sources to resolve any remaining original research issues today or tomorrow. I will ping you when I've finished. Thank you! — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I believe the issues have been resolved and I'm ready for you to reexamine the article. — Askarion ✉ 02:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is good stuff, @Askarion. I'm glad you took some of the advice to heart. I think this article had some very good examples of things the source just never actually said. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes

Lead

A general comment about the lead section. I see it has several citations. Most articles, with the exception of controversial claims or information not repeated later in the article, don't have citations in the lead (see MOS:LEADCITE). Consider following suit and relocating the citation invocations and/or information into the body.

  • At the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards, the episode won the awards for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Drama Series (One-Hour) and Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series (One Hour), and was Peter Dinklage's choice to support his nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series. The comma here is not needed. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences explains why. If I see ", and" in a sentence (usually), it means that I can split it there and have separate sentences. But there is no subject after ", and", and "Was Peter Dinklage's choice" is not a full sentence. So remove the comma or add "it" before "was", which may be preferable because of the long award titles. Future issues of this type are tagged (CinS)
 Done. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • Joffrey orders Ser Mandon Moore take command Add "to" after "Moore"
 Done. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • Change "costed" to "cost"
  • With their still-limited resources, producers decided not to stage the battle precisely as described in the novels, but rather to scale it down Remove the second comma (CinS)
  • to keep the audience engaged, while also avoiding expensive wide shots involving many extras This comma can go as well
  • The end credits version was performed by the American indie rock band The National, and sung by their vocalist Matt Berninger. Remove comma after The National (CinS)
  • the season two premiere, Remove this comma because it creates some weird issues with consecutive appositives.
 Done. All five. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • On the night of its premiere, the episode achieved a viewership of 3.38 million for its initial airing at 9:00pm, and an additional 0.83 million viewers for the rerun at 11:00pm Remove the second, unnecessary comma (CinS)
  • by about 20% This is a non-technical article. Write out "percent". MOS:PERCENT
  • 'Blackwater,' Even though inside a quote, conform to our style by making this a logical quote. MOS:LQ
  • and continued "but what ultimately made Blackwater so impressive wasn't the scope, but the focus." Because you quote a sentence fragment, quotation mark before period. If you quoted a whole sentence here, this would be correct.
 Done. All four. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and spot checks

Earwig reveals no issues, mostly quotes and proper nouns. (@Askarion: This is done and looks good here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There are four references that a script I use, User:Headbomb/unreliable, marks as generally unreliable. Leaving aside George R.R. Martin's blog (acceptable here as attributed self-published statements for Martin), they are [3] (PopSugar) and [11] (New York Post). Consider finding alternate, more reliable sources for these.

 Fixed. The PopSugar article has been replaced with Time Magazine. Upon closer inspection, The New York Post article was quoting the interview Benioff and Weiss gave to Entertainment Weekly, which was already cited, so I replaced the Post citation with the EW one. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use a date script (User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates) to unify the date styles in article text (mdy) versus references (dmy).

 Done. — Askarion ✉ 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 47 sources, 5 were selected for random spot checks:

  • 2: IGN guide with first air date. This wiki guide is not a reliable source; it is user-generated content. Some other, reliable source must surely have this air date information.
 Fixed. There were two sources I could find that mention the airdate: the Boston Globe and Business Insider. I've added the Business Insider one because the article itself is a bit less weird (Boston Globe is an entire article about emojis). I'm not sure where the best place to cite it would be, though, if not in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE). I've placed it in the infobox for now. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9: The $5-6 million average remained throughout the first five seasons of Game of Thrones, except for one particular episode. Season 2's penultimate episode, "Blackwater," featured an enormous battle sequence, which required extremely large set pieces with catapults, various props, and a full-scale 14th-century ship. In order to properly develop the Battle of Blackwater episode, Benioff and Weiss requested an extra $2.5 million. HBO countered with $2 million, bringing the total cost of just that one episode to $8 million. I don't think this passage quite justifies the motive attribution in though showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss knew this would not be enough to depict the battle as described in the novels from the article. They didn't. You could say they requested more money, but not that they "knew this would not be enough" from this source.
 Fixed. That passage sounded like original research, so I've rephrased it. The article no longer claims to know what Benioff and Weiss did or did not know about how much they were able to adapt. The article now reads "Showrunners were concerned that adapting the full scale of the battle described in George R. R. Martin's A Clash of Kings would require a larger budget than the $6 million HBO approved for the episode" and cites Vanity Fair. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18: Offline source. Replacing in spot check with
    • 16: This is a weird one. It confirms he wrote The Pointy End, but I also checked #17 next to it. He never says that it was harder than The Pointy End. All he says is that it is a bitch of an adaptation, the original author made the damn battle way too big and too expensive. Is there something I'm missing? Or does this need to be rephrased?
 Fixed. There was nothing to suggest that Martin found "Blackwater" harder to write in comparison to "The Pointy End", and "The Pointy End" probably doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I've rephrased the passage to remove any mention of it. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26: Thrillist listicle mentioning Pixomondo as the studio that did this visual work. Is there something better, by chance?
Unfortunately not one that mentions "Blackwater" specifically. An MTV article mentions that Pixomondo worked on "season 2", but doesn't get more specific than that; and a Den of Geek article mentions that Pixomondo worked on "the Battle of the Blackwater" but only in passing and doesn't mention the famous green explosion specifically, which is what the wording of the article implies Pixomondo was responsible for. — Askarion ✉ 05:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 44: Almost got thrown off by the Emmy site's weirdness, but it does show GOT as a winner.

Images

There are two images:

  • A non-free image of the green "wildfire" from the episode. It is used as the identification element in the infobox and is also discussed at some detail in the body of the article. An appropriate NFUR is on the image.
  • A 2016, CC-BY-SA 3.0 portrait of George R.R. Martin.

Encouragement: Add alt text for both to increase accessibility for users using screen readers. You do this by adding an |alt= parameter to the infobox and to the image code. Alt text is something you'll have to learn about if you take pages to FAC.

 Done. Did the best I could with it, but could probably use some tweaking. — Askarion ✉ 19:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackwater_(Game_of_Thrones)&oldid=1195151957"