This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
True Detective season 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
True Detective season 1 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Composer T Bone Burnett should probably be mentioned in this article. I found two great resources for possible inclusion: [1] [2]. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I am curious, do other editors have a sense of whether there should be articles for each episode? If so, would be great to work towards a Good topic. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on True Detective (season 1). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been through ten or twenty of the reviews, and have put together a draft rewrite. This is just a draft, so I haven't tried to make the quotes word-for-word accurate, and I haven't put in any cites -- I have the notes for the cites, but I want to see if this is in the right direction before doing that work.
The performances of the two lead actors were praised by almost all reviewers. McConaughey, in particular, impressed critics, with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great" and "simply magnetic". Some reviewers singled out simple conversational scenes, in claustrophobic interiors, as McConaughey's best work. Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey. The two separate timelines allowed Harrelson and McConaughey to foreshadow, in the 1990s scenes, the flaws their characters would experience. The characterization received more mixed commentary. Cohle's speeches, described by HuffPo as "mesmerizing monologues", and by Vanity Fair as dense and interesting material, were criticized by others as "'70s-era pscyho-babble" which slowed down the story. Several reviewers commented on the stereotypical portrayals of women as "either angry or aroused", though Michele Monaghan was praised for her performance in a "thankless role".
Pizzolatto and Fukunaga, as sole writer and director of the entire series, were able to exercise much stronger control over the show than is usual for a TV series, and The Independent felt this was a strength of the series which allowed the show to take risks. Pizzolatto's writing drew occasional criticism as overblown and stagy, and some felt there was too much experimentation: several reviewers commented that Pizzolatto was relatively new to TV drama writing, and that the script's mistakes could be attributed to his inexperience. Despite the criticism, the story was described as ambitious and deep. The flashback structure also divided reviewers: the NY Times reviewer found it "impressively seamless", but the fragmented approach to storytelling was considered a flaw by others. Fukunaga was praised for his atmospheric and "hauntingly beautiful" cinematography, and the "spare, hollow, percussive" soundtrack was also praised, with Uproxx crediting the creative control the two men wielded for the quality of the result.
The story of two mismatched detectives working on a case was described by several critics as a cliche, though many reviewers felt this was made into a strength: the Daily Beast, for example, described the narrative as having "the potential to be revolutionary", and the Grantland reviewer felt that "the form is truly radical and forward-thinking", though they added that "the content is anything but". Emily Nussbaum, writing for the New Yorker, was also critical, considering the real story to be "a simpler tale: one about heroic male outlines and closeups of female asses"; she described the philosophical monologues as "dorm room deep talk" and argued that the show had "fallen for its own sales pitch". Most reviewers were more positive: comments ranged from "as frighteningly nervy and furious in its delivery and intent as prime David Lynch", to "one of the most riveting and provocative series I've ever seen".
Some comments about this version:
Any comments? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now added citations in this sandbox, but the format for the web cites is autogenerated, and in most cases the article has existing citations for these sources, with archive URLs included. DAP388, how do you want to handle this? If you'd like to take over at this point and transfer the text to the article, modifying the citations to suit the format you've been using, that's fine with me. If you'd prefer I did it, let me know and I'll take a shot at it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Some comments on the current form, more later, hopefully.
The American press considered True Detective to be among the best television shows of 2014.[79]
Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient?
McConaughey, in particular, impressed critics,[80][81] with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great"[82] and "simply magnetic".[83]
About half of the quotes in this section can be squashed or paraphrased. The above sentence is typically a good opportunity for quotes, using specificity to bolster an otherwise one-dimensional claim or detail of critical impression that might be lost in paraphrase. However, I think the quotes are redundant in this case, as "impressed critics" communicated the same without the extra text. (They also remind of reviewer pull-quotes shown in film advertisements.) I'd just give the first part of the sentence a mega-citation and skip right to the scenes or actual examples that reviewers used to show their impression. I say "mega" because some of these claims are large and borderline original research, depending on how they're phrased. It's fine to say that "critics claimed x" because no one infers that it means "all critics claimed" (definitely don't write the latter without a source that says so, explicitly). Instead, you can group the five+ reviewers who made the claim (that McConaughey's performance was exceptional) into a single citation à la Sabre_Wulf#cite_ref-28. I'll try to add more later, but ping me if I get distracted. czar 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited as I read until I found myself giving it more of a FA review, so I toned that down too. Here are some questions/suggestions (in addition to the two unresolved quotes above):
Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey.[9][6]
Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".
split/separate timelines
Flashback? (Don't know, didn't read plot, though that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for understanding another section.) In any event, is this sentence needed? If it was praised as a thematic device, say so, that's the most important part
The characterization received more mixed commentary.
I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name
Monaghan was praised for her performance
watch passive voice and "by whom"
which let the show take risks
this is the juice of the sentence—what risks?
the story was described as ambitious and deep
"by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down
The flashback structure also divided critics: it was described as "impressively seamless",[17] and "a major asset",[19] but the fragmented approach to storytelling was considered a flaw by others.[5][11]
good quotes
Most reviewers were more positive
extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most")
Sidenote: Publisher fields aren't needed for almost all of these sources. It's more for the full book citation to accompany the location parameter. If the work is linked to a newspaper already, the publisher info is redundant. Do add the ISSNs, though. czar 02:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Czar, first of all, thanks for the detailed comments. I've been talking about improving reception sections for a while now, but I haven't had to submit anything I've written to review by others because the articles I write don't have reception sections; so this has been educational for me.
Second, I looked at a lot of reviews and took detailed notes; I'm going to list them below so I can refer to them. I think it may be justifiable to say "many" or "most" if we really have a preponderance of opinion and a lot of strong sources.
Here are the comments from above, with responses; it might take me a day or two to get through them all if I'm going to reply in detail.
The American press considered True Detective to be among the best television shows of 2014.[79]
Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient?
Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey.[9][6]
Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".
I guess mentally I converted "everyone who singled out one of the two singled out McConaughey" into "most reviewers thought McConaughey was better"; the two aren't equivalent. How about just making this "many critics"? And would we need to add some of the bigger names as refs, perhaps with an in-text comment listing the other sources? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
split/separate timelines
The characterization received more mixed commentary.
I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name
Monaghan was praised for her performance
watch passive voice and "by whom"
Was Monaghan's performance standout? NYer didn't think so. If it was, you can add a sentence on that, but it would work better if you could cite sources that say that Monaghan did the best with what she was given. For the sake of generalizing this example, I think it's good practice to always include the subject, whether it be a single source or a vaguer "critics/reviewers": "Monaghan was praised for her performance" makes the reader ask "by whom"—a director, the NYT, or a two-bit critic? The vaguer critics/reviewers at least has the authority of coming from multiple potentially two-bit opinions. czar 15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Critics noted the stereotypical vapidity of the show's female roles as "eye candy" or "misogynistic torture porn".[]
which let the show take risks
this is the juice of the sentence—what risks?
the story was described as ambitious and deep
"by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down
Most reviewers were more positive
extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most")
Czar: Stopping here for now to let you comment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Czar: Can you take another look now? On the remaining points above and tags in the article:
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Czar: just checking, since it's been a week: are we done here? Any more comments? And a question for both you and DAP388: would you mind if I added the before and after versions of the reception section to WP:Copyediting reception sections as an example? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
True Detective season 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
True Detective season 1 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2018. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Composer T Bone Burnett should probably be mentioned in this article. I found two great resources for possible inclusion: [1] [2]. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I am curious, do other editors have a sense of whether there should be articles for each episode? If so, would be great to work towards a Good topic. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on True Detective (season 1). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been through ten or twenty of the reviews, and have put together a draft rewrite. This is just a draft, so I haven't tried to make the quotes word-for-word accurate, and I haven't put in any cites -- I have the notes for the cites, but I want to see if this is in the right direction before doing that work.
The performances of the two lead actors were praised by almost all reviewers. McConaughey, in particular, impressed critics, with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great" and "simply magnetic". Some reviewers singled out simple conversational scenes, in claustrophobic interiors, as McConaughey's best work. Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey. The two separate timelines allowed Harrelson and McConaughey to foreshadow, in the 1990s scenes, the flaws their characters would experience. The characterization received more mixed commentary. Cohle's speeches, described by HuffPo as "mesmerizing monologues", and by Vanity Fair as dense and interesting material, were criticized by others as "'70s-era pscyho-babble" which slowed down the story. Several reviewers commented on the stereotypical portrayals of women as "either angry or aroused", though Michele Monaghan was praised for her performance in a "thankless role".
Pizzolatto and Fukunaga, as sole writer and director of the entire series, were able to exercise much stronger control over the show than is usual for a TV series, and The Independent felt this was a strength of the series which allowed the show to take risks. Pizzolatto's writing drew occasional criticism as overblown and stagy, and some felt there was too much experimentation: several reviewers commented that Pizzolatto was relatively new to TV drama writing, and that the script's mistakes could be attributed to his inexperience. Despite the criticism, the story was described as ambitious and deep. The flashback structure also divided reviewers: the NY Times reviewer found it "impressively seamless", but the fragmented approach to storytelling was considered a flaw by others. Fukunaga was praised for his atmospheric and "hauntingly beautiful" cinematography, and the "spare, hollow, percussive" soundtrack was also praised, with Uproxx crediting the creative control the two men wielded for the quality of the result.
The story of two mismatched detectives working on a case was described by several critics as a cliche, though many reviewers felt this was made into a strength: the Daily Beast, for example, described the narrative as having "the potential to be revolutionary", and the Grantland reviewer felt that "the form is truly radical and forward-thinking", though they added that "the content is anything but". Emily Nussbaum, writing for the New Yorker, was also critical, considering the real story to be "a simpler tale: one about heroic male outlines and closeups of female asses"; she described the philosophical monologues as "dorm room deep talk" and argued that the show had "fallen for its own sales pitch". Most reviewers were more positive: comments ranged from "as frighteningly nervy and furious in its delivery and intent as prime David Lynch", to "one of the most riveting and provocative series I've ever seen".
Some comments about this version:
Any comments? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now added citations in this sandbox, but the format for the web cites is autogenerated, and in most cases the article has existing citations for these sources, with archive URLs included. DAP388, how do you want to handle this? If you'd like to take over at this point and transfer the text to the article, modifying the citations to suit the format you've been using, that's fine with me. If you'd prefer I did it, let me know and I'll take a shot at it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Some comments on the current form, more later, hopefully.
The American press considered True Detective to be among the best television shows of 2014.[79]
Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient?
McConaughey, in particular, impressed critics,[80][81] with his work described as "jaw-droppingly great"[82] and "simply magnetic".[83]
About half of the quotes in this section can be squashed or paraphrased. The above sentence is typically a good opportunity for quotes, using specificity to bolster an otherwise one-dimensional claim or detail of critical impression that might be lost in paraphrase. However, I think the quotes are redundant in this case, as "impressed critics" communicated the same without the extra text. (They also remind of reviewer pull-quotes shown in film advertisements.) I'd just give the first part of the sentence a mega-citation and skip right to the scenes or actual examples that reviewers used to show their impression. I say "mega" because some of these claims are large and borderline original research, depending on how they're phrased. It's fine to say that "critics claimed x" because no one infers that it means "all critics claimed" (definitely don't write the latter without a source that says so, explicitly). Instead, you can group the five+ reviewers who made the claim (that McConaughey's performance was exceptional) into a single citation à la Sabre_Wulf#cite_ref-28. I'll try to add more later, but ping me if I get distracted. czar 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited as I read until I found myself giving it more of a FA review, so I toned that down too. Here are some questions/suggestions (in addition to the two unresolved quotes above):
Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey.[9][6]
Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".
split/separate timelines
Flashback? (Don't know, didn't read plot, though that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for understanding another section.) In any event, is this sentence needed? If it was praised as a thematic device, say so, that's the most important part
The characterization received more mixed commentary.
I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name
Monaghan was praised for her performance
watch passive voice and "by whom"
which let the show take risks
this is the juice of the sentence—what risks?
the story was described as ambitious and deep
"by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down
The flashback structure also divided critics: it was described as "impressively seamless",[17] and "a major asset",[19] but the fragmented approach to storytelling was considered a flaw by others.[5][11]
good quotes
Most reviewers were more positive
extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most")
Sidenote: Publisher fields aren't needed for almost all of these sources. It's more for the full book citation to accompany the location parameter. If the work is linked to a newspaper already, the publisher info is redundant. Do add the ISSNs, though. czar 02:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Czar, first of all, thanks for the detailed comments. I've been talking about improving reception sections for a while now, but I haven't had to submit anything I've written to review by others because the articles I write don't have reception sections; so this has been educational for me.
Second, I looked at a lot of reviews and took detailed notes; I'm going to list them below so I can refer to them. I think it may be justifiable to say "many" or "most" if we really have a preponderance of opinion and a lot of strong sources.
Here are the comments from above, with responses; it might take me a day or two to get through them all if I'm going to reply in detail.
The American press considered True Detective to be among the best television shows of 2014.[79]
Is there a grammatical necessity for "to be" or would "among" by itself be sufficient?
Harrelson's performance was also regarded as very strong, though most critics felt he was outshone by McConaughey.[9][6]
Regarded by whom? Refs need to answer this question if the prose will not (directly). And "most" with only two refs would be insufficient unless one of those refs said "most critics".
I guess mentally I converted "everyone who singled out one of the two singled out McConaughey" into "most reviewers thought McConaughey was better"; the two aren't equivalent. How about just making this "many critics"? And would we need to add some of the bigger names as refs, perhaps with an in-text comment listing the other sources? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
split/separate timelines
The characterization received more mixed commentary.
I'm in the camp that this is an extraordinary claim (and likely original research). Others might be more lenient and others might be harsher. Best to avoid, anyway. How can we make a definitive statement about the characterization across all reviewers? Unless a source says so, I don't see it. I'd save the blanket statements for when they can be supported with a ref dump. And the next sentence already does that work for you. (Why are two papers mentioned by name and the third is anonymized as "criticized by others"?) If anything, the dissenting source is the one to mention by name
Monaghan was praised for her performance
watch passive voice and "by whom"
Was Monaghan's performance standout? NYer didn't think so. If it was, you can add a sentence on that, but it would work better if you could cite sources that say that Monaghan did the best with what she was given. For the sake of generalizing this example, I think it's good practice to always include the subject, whether it be a single source or a vaguer "critics/reviewers": "Monaghan was praised for her performance" makes the reader ask "by whom"—a director, the NYT, or a two-bit critic? The vaguer critics/reviewers at least has the authority of coming from multiple potentially two-bit opinions. czar 15:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Critics noted the stereotypical vapidity of the show's female roles as "eye candy" or "misogynistic torture porn".[]
which let the show take risks
this is the juice of the sentence—what risks?
the story was described as ambitious and deep
"by whom?" Without qualification, this sentence is made to read like gospel. It either needs a ton of refs to back it up or else to be watered down
Most reviewers were more positive
extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof (two is not the same as "most")
Czar: Stopping here for now to let you comment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Czar: Can you take another look now? On the remaining points above and tags in the article:
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Czar: just checking, since it's been a week: are we done here? Any more comments? And a question for both you and DAP388: would you mind if I added the before and after versions of the reception section to WP:Copyediting reception sections as an example? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)