This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
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 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game 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 was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2023.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
"Best episode overall" vs "best to date"
The show is only 3 episodes in, and "best to date" is both factual (covering best overall until otherwise needed) and more sustainable writing (if episode 4 is suddenly the best, the 2nd option means you don't have to change 2 wiki pages).
Mxbndr (
talk)
07:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Neither "Best episode overall" and "Best to date" are factual. They are both opinion-based. Saying that current phrasing is "sustainable" implies that you have already decided this will be the best episode forever, regardless of what happens next, which suggests an ulterior motive.
58.80.201.106 (
talk)
06:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't decided anything, but the sources have. Unless every journalist and reviewer retrospectively changes their mind, the phrasing is, in fact, sustainable. Suggestions of "an ulterior motive" are laughable. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)07:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: @
Rhain: To be honest, these hooks aren't really that interesting. The only one I find remotely interesting is Alt3 but the linking of the real town of lincoln in the hook kind of makes the hook confusing with it suggesting that the real town of lincoln was made by them in six to twelve weeks. Also Earwig reports severe copyright issues. I do think that they might've just copied off wikipedia though but I would like some confirmation.
Onegreatjoke (
talk)
21:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Onegreatjoke: Fair enough—I've written some really uninteresting hooks in my time and actually consider these some of the better ones, but to each their own. Here are some alternatives:
@
Rhain and
Onegreatjoke: Personally, I really like 3 of the original hooks; ALT4 and ALT7 are both pretty good, but I think the original ALT1, ALT2 and ALT3 are much stronger and more interesting. If those are no good, other hooks might perhaps focus on the casting of Nick Offerman due to the unavailability of
Con O'Neill on Our Flag Means Death (referenced in the official podcast episode) or that it was important to Mazin and Druckmann to have other middle-aged queer men involved in the production, including
Peter Hoar as director (also referenced in the podcast, along with 2 other names I can't remember off-hand)? Either way, amazing work on the article everyone! — OwenBlacker (he/him;
Talk; please {{
ping}} me in replies)17:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Do you think it's important enough to mention Ellie gets a gun this episode? It's mentioned by secondary source recaps:
Joel won't let Ellie take a gun; but when he isn't looking, she finds the pistol Frank kept stashed in a writing desk, and she shoves into her backpack. This will undoubtedly appear again later.
Ellie, who has been begging for a gun, finds one, which she stashes in her backpack without telling Joel. That will either be a problem or come in handy soon.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Mazin's script was published by Deadline in May 2023, considered one of the ten drama series most likely for an Emmy nomination." Latter part doesn't make any sense.
"Critics overwhelmingly considered the episode the season's best,[5][62][63] and some named it among the greatest television episodes;[64][65][66] The Hollywood Reporter's Daniel Fienberg felt it elevated the series to a new level,[4] Empire's John Nugent called it "moving, surprisingly romantic, and one of the finest hours of television in recent memory",[67] and The Guardian's Andy Welch described it as "absolutely magical television"." This sentence should be broken up, probably after the outlets saying it was among the greatest television episodes.
Images
Consider adding alt text to all of the images.
The only not-public domain image in use here is the infobox image, which seems to be justified as a point of discussion in the article.
Sources
Spotchecked some uses of 17, 30, 39, 2, 20, as well as 64, 65, 66, 91, and 96. Particularly focused on the reception bits due to the "among the greatest television" and a review bombing definitely being areas that need high quality sourcing.
65 and 66 only describe the episode as being one of the best in recent years. Maybe have attribution here (ex. X and Y named it among the greatest television episodes in recent years, while Z named it one of the greatest of all time.)
There isn't really a whole lot that needs to be addressed, overall an extremely well written article and probably one of the greatest I've read related to TV episodes. I'll put this on hold for now. λNegativeMP119:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.