Talk:Hawthorne (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hawthorne (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hawthorne (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hawthorne (TV series) at the Reference desk.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are there no positive reviews in the critical reception?

New York Times at least has one that isn't totally negative like the rest on this page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/arts/television/16hawthorne.html

"The writing is a bit stilted and predictable, but the show is not unbearable — there are some amusing supporting actors and the occasional engrossing medical crisis."

Jabberwockgee (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added, see [1]. :) Cirt (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the (currently) 12th reference ("What did you think of Nurse Jackie?") shouldn't be used, as the article is about a different show and the reviewer gives no basis for his 'review.' As he says: "In less capable hands, this show could have sucked (or ended up looking like TNT’s upcoming and uncompelling HawthoRNe, which I have a screener for but can’t bring myself to watch just yet)." You shouldn't reference a review from a reviewer who hadn't even watched it yet. Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian airdate

Source? Why is this noteworthy or significant for an encyclopedia article? -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary ratings by viewers

Itunes ratings by viewers are neither notable, nor reliable, and also WP:NOR. This should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregations of reviewers scores are perfectly acceptable, and can be used in addition to 'professional' reviewer aggregations. Also, WP:OR has nothing to do with this topic. Jabberwockgee (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different pages for different seasons

I agree this article does need work. Has anyone done anything yet? Tj1224 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section needs work

In metacritic there are three negative, two positive and seven mixed reviews, this article focuses only on the negative reviews why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.65.8 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]