Talk:Stranger Things season 3

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019

Mention that Netflix has agreed to cut back depictions of characters smoking after criticism? https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/health/netflix-smoking-stranger-things/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by StewBrewer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Historical inaccuracies

The night in the 7th episode is the 4th of July but back to the future1 Didn't get out till aug 5 '85 Nuttrpuckr69 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with @Masem, so the recent re-edit by @Mikus has again given undue weight to negative reviews; surely his would only be justified if Season 3 had received generally unfavourable reviews. Inpeacebase (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reception

Some interesting data: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/stranger-things-3-scores-svod-record-says-nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.162.95.223 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stranger Things (season 3)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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).

Thanks for the review! I should have a chance to fix these tomorrow hopefully. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Update Sorry, have been busier than expected will get to everything by the end of this weekend. Thanks for being patient, again my apologies. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to the balancing act of responsible Wikipedia work, take all the time you need. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Passed. Good job with the article. I hope that Stranger Things 4 is as enjoyable for me as 3. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)