Talk:Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Here are some suggestions for improving the article so that it can obtain GA status:

Per WP:MOSTV (and IMO), the information could be better organised in Production and Reception sections ("Controversy" is also fairly vague). Without mixing things up too drastically, just about the first paragraph could be moved into a Production section minus the KSL-TV and ET notes.
The "reception"-like material under Controversy doesn't address this specific episode; rather, we have the NY Times talking generally about sweeps period lesbians, Michele Greene talking about her kiss on a different show, and a blockquote (which isn't attributed to anybody) discussing 90s TV homosexuality only making reference to Friends and NYPD Blue. We only actually have one comment, from The Guardian, commenting on this episode in particular. I understand that TV reviews from 1993 are hard to come by, but this area could do with some focused reviews and maybe some reorganisation.
The controversy generated by "Sugar & Spice" led to a chilling effect on the non-sensationalized presentation of same-sex intimacy on network television through most of the rest of the 1990s - seems like a very big statement to make considering only one quote (mentioning two shows, and not even linking these examples to the show in question) in the article actually addresses this.
In a move described as "a prime example of network hypocrisy" - described by whom?

I'll place the GAN on hold, so you have a week to make changes to the article. Good luck! —97198 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've split up "Controversy" into "Production" and "Reception" but I think it makes the article choppy. I have added "and other lesbian kiss episodes" to the lead and created a subhead for the lesbian kiss episode material. My goal with this material is to try to explain how this early example of a lesbian kiss episode both formed part of a ratings stunt trend and led to TV producers being more cautious about presenting any serious same-sex sexual expression while at the same time pushing boundaries for mixed-sex expression. The block quote is attributed with an inline citation. The "network hypocrisy" quote is attributed at the end of the sentence but I went ahead and put in a duplicate reference.
I've pretty well exhausted everything I can find on this episode. I've searched a number of online newspaper databases in hopes of finding reviews but without success. I'll keep looking for the rest of the hold period but I think what's here is all that there's going to be. Otto4711 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant when I said that the quotes ("network hypocrisy" and the ending blockquote) weren't attributed to anybody was that neither read something like "somebody said this". The first quote doesn't need the duplicate reference but rather "was described by Stephen Tropiano of PopMatters as..."; the blockquote needs to have (instead of just a ref) some line of attribution, like a "Ron Becker, author of [book], said:" before the quote begins. Otherwise, the quote would function well as a {{Cquote}} (separated from the context) - but with a "—Ron Becker, [book]" attribution line at the bottom (I think that's in the parameters of the template).
I do understand that reviews would be (and are!) hard to come by, so the material here should suffice, esp. since the lead has been adjusted to mention the relation to similar episodes of other shows around the same time. Sorry it took a few days to get back to you :) —97198 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the time for getting back to me. I've added the attributions that you requested. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, it looks good to me. I'll promote this to a GA :) —97198 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]