![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think people are being very unfair on the specials, Yes it was never going to be as good as the original broadcasts, It was great to see the cast back together and was really a treat to see Chloe back :), People expected to much for the specials, yes I thought it could of been much better but was good for what it was. Mike Barrett ( talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
To spare any confusion, the reference to TV Scoop's comments on episode 1 are made in a review of episode 2, hence why the link connects to a review of that episode when our article says it is discussing the first. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that the critical reception hasn't been great, it seems to have improved since the weekend... certainly, some reviewers have said more positive things than "green shoots of improvement". For balance, I've added a short sentence to the end of "critical reception" that cites positive reviews from Total Sci-Fi, Liverpool Confidential, and Den of Geek. Hopefully those meet the criteria for being good sources (there's quite a few other good reviews but they're mostly from blogs). Señor Service ( talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Senor Service. It was rather unbalanced before, wasn't it? I'd planned on solving this but hadn't had time to find positive sources. Thanks for doing that. I have just tweaked the phrasing a little to make the paragraph flow better. I'm not sure if its an improvement or not, though! Thanks for the help! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the critical reception needs work. There are major aspects not covered, although I don't know whether or not you can find some of them in published sources. Most notably the tepid response to the lack of a laugh track (read through the comments on the Dave website, sadly I don't think these are source-able)! Also, this article gives TV-Scoop's opinion way too much credence. We need more negatives and positives from outside sources (what did happen to those added by Señor Service? What he added sounded just as good as TV-Scoop, whoever they are). In general, mixed is the only word I can think for Back to Earth. After watching them during Easter I went online and searched through hundreds of forums, and they all had mixed ideas (I know that sourcing them is trouble, but I don't see personally why someone writing for a magazine's opinion is more important than a Dwarf fan's is?). I would try and work on this, but people's paranoia about a reviewer's creditability is preventing me from even trying. Comrade Graham ( talk) 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed so much with this article, but with that wikipedia rule. It just seems to say "If you are rich/powerful/famous your opinion matters." I do realise that you can't quote what random people on the internet say, because you don't know if they are telling the truth or not. I just think that with so many people saying similar things, you should atleast make some comment about it. -- 91.104.254.117 ( talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Although Smeg Ups is being shown over the same weekend as Back to Earth, it is not in itself a part of the "Back to Earth" storyline, so surely should be listed seprately in the appropriate articles and pages.
The first episode has aired, and so needs to be updated to show the correct tense (past instead of future) for its air date. — Balthazar ( T| C) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am on it, though do be afraid of doing this yourself in future if you spot an article that needs correction. -- Matt 86.153.63.30 ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never actually seen Blade Runner all the way through, but perhaps someone who has could make a list of the references? All I got was the line "time to die", and that the origami squid was based on the unicorn, but I'm sure there's more. Daibhid C ( talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). 59.167.58.33 ( talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What were they on about in this story? They mentioned series 9 and 10? There's only 8 series according to Wikipedia. Do the producers counnt them differently? 81.157.236.16 ( talk) 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the second para slightly in what I hope is a fairly innocuous edit. On reflection, I was concerned that the previous version muted the positive reception among some critics by making it sound like they merely agreed that there were green shoots of improvement in the second episode ("the second episode contained 'green shoots of improvement'. This positive response was shared by other critics..."). For balance, if we're going to quote one of the show's detractors laying into it in no uncertain terms, I don't think we can understate the positive reception, where it existed. Señor Service ( talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
would you classify this as a dramedy? 188.222.41.105 ( talk) 18:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Red dwarf back to earth screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think people are being very unfair on the specials, Yes it was never going to be as good as the original broadcasts, It was great to see the cast back together and was really a treat to see Chloe back :), People expected to much for the specials, yes I thought it could of been much better but was good for what it was. Mike Barrett ( talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
To spare any confusion, the reference to TV Scoop's comments on episode 1 are made in a review of episode 2, hence why the link connects to a review of that episode when our article says it is discussing the first. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that the critical reception hasn't been great, it seems to have improved since the weekend... certainly, some reviewers have said more positive things than "green shoots of improvement". For balance, I've added a short sentence to the end of "critical reception" that cites positive reviews from Total Sci-Fi, Liverpool Confidential, and Den of Geek. Hopefully those meet the criteria for being good sources (there's quite a few other good reviews but they're mostly from blogs). Señor Service ( talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Senor Service. It was rather unbalanced before, wasn't it? I'd planned on solving this but hadn't had time to find positive sources. Thanks for doing that. I have just tweaked the phrasing a little to make the paragraph flow better. I'm not sure if its an improvement or not, though! Thanks for the help! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the critical reception needs work. There are major aspects not covered, although I don't know whether or not you can find some of them in published sources. Most notably the tepid response to the lack of a laugh track (read through the comments on the Dave website, sadly I don't think these are source-able)! Also, this article gives TV-Scoop's opinion way too much credence. We need more negatives and positives from outside sources (what did happen to those added by Señor Service? What he added sounded just as good as TV-Scoop, whoever they are). In general, mixed is the only word I can think for Back to Earth. After watching them during Easter I went online and searched through hundreds of forums, and they all had mixed ideas (I know that sourcing them is trouble, but I don't see personally why someone writing for a magazine's opinion is more important than a Dwarf fan's is?). I would try and work on this, but people's paranoia about a reviewer's creditability is preventing me from even trying. Comrade Graham ( talk) 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed so much with this article, but with that wikipedia rule. It just seems to say "If you are rich/powerful/famous your opinion matters." I do realise that you can't quote what random people on the internet say, because you don't know if they are telling the truth or not. I just think that with so many people saying similar things, you should atleast make some comment about it. -- 91.104.254.117 ( talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Although Smeg Ups is being shown over the same weekend as Back to Earth, it is not in itself a part of the "Back to Earth" storyline, so surely should be listed seprately in the appropriate articles and pages.
The first episode has aired, and so needs to be updated to show the correct tense (past instead of future) for its air date. — Balthazar ( T| C) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am on it, though do be afraid of doing this yourself in future if you spot an article that needs correction. -- Matt 86.153.63.30 ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never actually seen Blade Runner all the way through, but perhaps someone who has could make a list of the references? All I got was the line "time to die", and that the origami squid was based on the unicorn, but I'm sure there's more. Daibhid C ( talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). 59.167.58.33 ( talk) 09:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What were they on about in this story? They mentioned series 9 and 10? There's only 8 series according to Wikipedia. Do the producers counnt them differently? 81.157.236.16 ( talk) 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the second para slightly in what I hope is a fairly innocuous edit. On reflection, I was concerned that the previous version muted the positive reception among some critics by making it sound like they merely agreed that there were green shoots of improvement in the second episode ("the second episode contained 'green shoots of improvement'. This positive response was shared by other critics..."). For balance, if we're going to quote one of the show's detractors laying into it in no uncertain terms, I don't think we can understate the positive reception, where it existed. Señor Service ( talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
would you classify this as a dramedy? 188.222.41.105 ( talk) 18:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Red dwarf back to earth screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |