This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This was out before S3 aired, and only looks to have S1 and S2, and in general is about Netflix's original programming, so likely better on Netflix's article. --
Masem (
t)
03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are indeed quite correct - and I apologize for my inobservance. I will propose this addition where you have recommended.
StewBrewer (
talk)
12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is original research to point these out. (Also, some of the movie posters had "sneak peak" on them, so that would explain that timing). --
Masem (
t)
02:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually, Back to the Future was released to 1200 screens on July 3, 1985, so your original research checks out (and would explain why the theater was nearly full). I noticed Cocoon and (I think?) Fletch were also showing at the theater, and both of those were released before July 4.
Hoof Hearted (
talk)
14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Undue weight given to negative criticism
Given that in 'Reception' it refers to "generally favorable reviews", it seems unbalanced to follow this only with critically negative comments, indeed several.
Inpeacebase (
talk)
22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There's clearly positive commentary about the season to be added. I had previously cautioned @
Mikus: about including commentary w/o inline cites as well as just putting in negative comments. The reception should be developed with both positive and negative concerns , since many sources will have comments both ways. --
Masem (
t)
01:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yep, I provided inline attribution as you asked. Add positive reviews and quotations if you need them, instead of removing the quotations that I provided.
Mikus (
talk)
05:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
No, you didn't provide enough. These are not recognized names, you have to give their work they write for too. Also, their commentary is all past tense. Also, you used rather strong words in Wikivoice about their opinions. We cannot go that far in some cases. But moreso, you're
WP:QUOTEFARMing here. At the end of the day, the core idea is that several reviewers found that the amount of 80s references in the season was pandering and weakened the experience. That doesn't need all those separate quotes from 8-some different people that are saying essentially the same thing. Its not a point to ignore, no question, but it needs to be in balance with the remaining critical review of the series, and that's why I said before that positive and negative criticism should be written in conjunction, not one then the other. We're to find the balance here. --
Masem (
t)
05:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Lead seems a little light, doesn't at all describe what happens in the season. It could also benefit from a very brief summary of what Stranger Things even is (in both lead and article).
I wonder if "Notable guests" is OR. Might just be best to note Guests, as it doesn't have to include all guests.
It notes a possible raise to $250,000; what is that contingent on? Is it "$200,000 or $250,000 if you do well"? Or does it just represent a range of possibilities, with a minimum and a maximum?
Putting quotations around commercial feels a little awkward; consider changing this to saying it's an in-universe commercial for the first instance.
Wasn't there a video game adaptation of ST3?
It feels inaccurate to say that the season received positive reception; it certainly did, but it also received comparable negative reception. Should at least note that it's "generally positive reception" if not mixed to positive.
The Reception should be paraphrased more than it is, too much straight-up quotation of the sources.
The Forbes link is from a contributor, and is thus not a reliable source.
One or more sources lack necessary information, such as the title of an article and one or more instances of the work of an article not being mentioned in the reference(s).
About the raises the source states that "I hear their per-episode fee will go up to more than $200,000 an episodes and possibly around $250,000." so I've fixed that statement in the article. Added a section about the video game adaption. Outside of that everything else should be fixed. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks again -
TheDoctorWho(talk)22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This was out before S3 aired, and only looks to have S1 and S2, and in general is about Netflix's original programming, so likely better on Netflix's article. --
Masem (
t)
03:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are indeed quite correct - and I apologize for my inobservance. I will propose this addition where you have recommended.
StewBrewer (
talk)
12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is original research to point these out. (Also, some of the movie posters had "sneak peak" on them, so that would explain that timing). --
Masem (
t)
02:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Actually, Back to the Future was released to 1200 screens on July 3, 1985, so your original research checks out (and would explain why the theater was nearly full). I noticed Cocoon and (I think?) Fletch were also showing at the theater, and both of those were released before July 4.
Hoof Hearted (
talk)
14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Undue weight given to negative criticism
Given that in 'Reception' it refers to "generally favorable reviews", it seems unbalanced to follow this only with critically negative comments, indeed several.
Inpeacebase (
talk)
22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There's clearly positive commentary about the season to be added. I had previously cautioned @
Mikus: about including commentary w/o inline cites as well as just putting in negative comments. The reception should be developed with both positive and negative concerns , since many sources will have comments both ways. --
Masem (
t)
01:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yep, I provided inline attribution as you asked. Add positive reviews and quotations if you need them, instead of removing the quotations that I provided.
Mikus (
talk)
05:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
No, you didn't provide enough. These are not recognized names, you have to give their work they write for too. Also, their commentary is all past tense. Also, you used rather strong words in Wikivoice about their opinions. We cannot go that far in some cases. But moreso, you're
WP:QUOTEFARMing here. At the end of the day, the core idea is that several reviewers found that the amount of 80s references in the season was pandering and weakened the experience. That doesn't need all those separate quotes from 8-some different people that are saying essentially the same thing. Its not a point to ignore, no question, but it needs to be in balance with the remaining critical review of the series, and that's why I said before that positive and negative criticism should be written in conjunction, not one then the other. We're to find the balance here. --
Masem (
t)
05:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Lead seems a little light, doesn't at all describe what happens in the season. It could also benefit from a very brief summary of what Stranger Things even is (in both lead and article).
I wonder if "Notable guests" is OR. Might just be best to note Guests, as it doesn't have to include all guests.
It notes a possible raise to $250,000; what is that contingent on? Is it "$200,000 or $250,000 if you do well"? Or does it just represent a range of possibilities, with a minimum and a maximum?
Putting quotations around commercial feels a little awkward; consider changing this to saying it's an in-universe commercial for the first instance.
Wasn't there a video game adaptation of ST3?
It feels inaccurate to say that the season received positive reception; it certainly did, but it also received comparable negative reception. Should at least note that it's "generally positive reception" if not mixed to positive.
The Reception should be paraphrased more than it is, too much straight-up quotation of the sources.
The Forbes link is from a contributor, and is thus not a reliable source.
One or more sources lack necessary information, such as the title of an article and one or more instances of the work of an article not being mentioned in the reference(s).
About the raises the source states that "I hear their per-episode fee will go up to more than $200,000 an episodes and possibly around $250,000." so I've fixed that statement in the article. Added a section about the video game adaption. Outside of that everything else should be fixed. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks again -
TheDoctorWho(talk)22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply