Talk: Episode receptions

Sources[]

If you're wondering what major sources are, just use common sense, as in a source everyone's heard of that is reputable. Not really too difficult. -- Sam McPherson T C E 14:20, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

I think it might be preferable if we do two things: firstly, we make a list of "reputable sources"; and second, we put something in the page source code to tell people that you cannot just add any criticism. My fear for a page like this is that someone will come along with a piece of critique, post it, and then everyone'll be up in arms over whether it is a reputable source or not. Therefore, we devise a list of sources, and all other sources cannot be included on this page. I think this is a good page - and with constant updating and a variety of sources can become a potential AOTW) - but restrictive measures need to be made now rather than later.-- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:51, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
- I agree we need to get a list down. Perhaps we could start right here.--Jinx Talk Contribs 15:18, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  - What about British sources, or Australian sources, or NZ sources? Does anyone else think it'd be good to have reception from all over the globe, rather than just the US?-- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:40, 26 August 2008 (PDT)
    - I don't see why not. I'll have a look for some Aussie sources. --Blueeagle islander 02:00, 26 August 2008 (PDT)

List of Reputable Sources[]

Los Angeles Times
New York Times
IGN
USA Today
E!
TV Guide
Entertainment Weekly

IGN[]

Is it fair to use the IGN reviews, made years after some of the episodes? They are reviewing the episodes with future knowledge. how can we call that "episode reception" when the episode was received 4 years before the article in some cases? --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 20:47, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

I agree. The reviews should preferably be from a POV of a critic who hasn't seen future episodes. --Blueeagle islander 01:38, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
I think that although it is after the fact, it is still a review about the episode, and if it is a good episode they are not going to consider it bad because they watched it the second time around. I constantly watch Lost episodes over and over again and the mystery isn't always there, but you can look at other smaller things in the episode.--Jinx Talk Contribs 15:17, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
- Yes, but a fan watching an episode, and a review watching it are two different things. I don't think we can fairly say a review written 4 years after the episode first aired counts as "reception". --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 17:30, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  - Reception on this article is about whether someone thinks an episode is good or not. I don't think it really matters when it was given. I hold the same opinions about season one episodes now (after 60-odd episodes) as I did when I first saw them. -- Sam McPherson T C E 17:37, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
    - That's fine, but maybe we should at make it more clear in the article that reviews may not be from the original airing. That seems like a good enough compromise to me. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 20:19, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
      - Maybe something like "Reviews are not necessarily from original airing. Click the link to see more information about individual reviews." --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 20:22, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
Alright, I'll put something at the very top of the article.--Jinx Talk Contribs 17:21, 26 August 2008 (PDT)

Colours[]

I think that the colours for the reception templates are just too strong. Maybe you can find some pale versions of the same colours. -- Steff talk contribs email 15:09, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
LOL, i didn't see the discussion for the colours above. I'll give myself the freedom of moving it here, under the TOC. -- Steff talk contribs email 15:33, 25 August 2008 (PDT)

Do you need the psychedelic colors - its giving me a headache lol. --Nickb123 (Talk) 14:14, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

I find them useful to sort out the negatives and the positives. Duller colors could be used, I suppose. Change them as you want. -- Sam McPherson T C E 14:19, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

I think they are nessecary, but we could go a bit duller and instead of blue we could have a kind of like caution yellow for a mixed review.--Jinx Talk Contribs 14:20, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

Agreed with Jinx. -- Sam McPherson T C E 14:20, 24 August 2008 (PDT)

The green, red, and yellow is a good idea, but I reckon they're too bright. I'll go do a sandbox of some alternative colours.-- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:00, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
- User:Lost Soul/sandbox2. Just changed the green and red (I know the red's not perfect, but...), and then darkened the speech marks on the yellow. What do you guys think? I just reckon if people are gonna be reading this page completely, looking at the colours as they are won't be very good for their eyes.-- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:11, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  - I like the new paler colours proposed by Lost Soul on his sandbox. In fact anything is better than the ones that are used now :) -- Steff talk contribs email 15:36, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
  - I agree, we should change the colors to Lost Soul's palette.(sp?)--Jinx Talk Contribs 15:40, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
    - Now people can in fact read the article without having to make an appointment at St. Sebastian to have their eyesight checked =) -- Steff talk contribs email 15:49, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
      - The only problem is that the links are hard to read on the red ones...-- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:39, 26 August 2008 (PDT)

Quotes, Tables, Encyclopedic content[]

This article raises the same troubling issue that plagued us about a year and a half ago when the quote template began to be used indiscriminately across the entire site, for example adding quotes for every character. The encyclopedic nature of this article seems to be entirely separate from the subjective nature of editors choosing the specific text to quote in this article. I don't see a good argument for this article as a collection of review quotes from a small set of editors as being "encyclopedic" or necessary for the wiki. However, I can see it being changed to a list article, and as such a compilation of links to major reviews. The other problem is that of defining "major" reviewers. If the number of reviewers is <10, it's sort of not encyclopedic... in other words it is almost equivalent to creating separate articles for each reviewer, and having links to every episode in each. In that case, this article would serve more efficiently in a movie-review comparison format as a TABLE, with episodes along one axis, and selected "major" reviewers along the other axis. We'll see where this article goes, but in the current form it is not encyclopedic, and may be subject to moving to a less encyclopedic venue such as the forums. Otherwise we'll have a "favorite quotes of all major characters" article. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 22:08, 5 October 2008 (PDT)

Problem[]

This page isn't being updated since season 4... Dancing Penguin (Talk!) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither has Wikipedia, unfortunately, which appears to be where many of the editors have gotten the reviews. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Order[]

There should be an order for the reviews, right? E.g. there's USA Today before EW in an episode, then there's EW before USA Today in another. MryCrisper (talk) 04:38, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

We should integrate each section with the relevant episode page, into paragraphs with quotes. That's going to be a big project. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 10:50, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think we might have thought about adding episode reviews/receptions to the pages before and for whatever reason we decided against it. Probably because it would be quite a lengthy addition to the page if we want to include the full spectrum of reviews. That's probably how we came to this article being created.--Baker1000 (talk) 20:45, February 11, 2013 (UTC)