Jump to content

Talk:The Sue Sylvester Shuffle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Sue Sylvester Shuffle has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Post-broadcast reception

[edit]

A bit early to be doing this, but if you're writing the plot right now, Frickative, these might help you out. I especially loved how much pop culture they put in this episode ("TiK ToK", "Boom Boom Pow", Felix the Cat, Dina Lohan, Double Rainbow, etc.). :)

  • Tucker, Ken (February 6, 2011). "'Glee' Super Bowl episode review: Intentionally over-the-top, in a good or a bad way?". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. Retrieved January 7, 2011.
  • Cline, Georgette (February 7, 2011). "'Glee,' 'The Sue Sylvester Shuffle' Super Bowl Recap -- Season 2, Episode 11". AOL Music. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesssdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

—Yves (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And I see you've already done it haha! Great job! Yves (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks Yves! I sometimes wonder whether we should have a 'Cultural references' section like The Simpsons and Family Guy articles have, among others, but I haven't tried writing one since "Showmance", and that just came out as a disjointed list of 'So and so referred to X. Blah said "Y", a reference to Z.' Bad prose. Pretty sure we can get a line out of Dina Lohan in production somewhere though, given her threats to sue after "The Substitute" :D. Frickative 05:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha oh my: I wonder what her reaction's gonna be! And I'm not sure if a whole section would be considered too much like WP:TRIVIA or WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. But if it's covered by many of the reviewers, which I'm sure the Lohan thing will be, then it's surely worth a mention. Yves (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Quite the overnight expansion--well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks a lot for the copy edit. I'm really not keen on the level four headers under "Reception", but I vacillate over how best to organize the music info pretty much every episode. It's usually, as it is here, about a third production to two thirds critical response, plus commercial reception thrown in once the charts are out. It doesn't really feel right to keep it all together and so end up with reception of the soundtrack above the reception of the episode itself, but equally, splitting it up makes for a monstrously long "Critical response" section. It's a tough one. Frickative 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to edit the reception section by re-organizing the headers. However, I will wait until the article is more complete, especially given what you just stated. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would your recommendation be for the section headers? There's probably not too much more to come in at this point - barring Time, MTV and a couple of the New York publications, most of the regular reviewers have weighed in now, so it's largely a matter of editing it into coherency. Given that it regularly drives me crazy, I'm curious as to how you think it's best organized :) Frickative 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least for now, a single header for "Critical reception" seems appropriate with subsections for the episode and the music. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what would you do with ratings, then? US finals should be out by the end of the day, I think. Frickative 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Feel free to revert to the other headings when more information is added to the article. I just meant that, for now, the headings without content looked odd. Of course, the article could just have a "Ratings" section. I'm sure organization will fall into place as content is added. Sorry for the confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob - I quite like the idea of a separate "Ratings" section actually. I've seen some articles do it as "Broadcast and ratings" or something similar, with the key Western air dates in there. Most Glee articles this season have a healthy sized paragraph on ratings, so it's a pretty feasible idea! I guess we'll see how it all pans out :) Frickative 18:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, with this being a post-Super Bowl episode, there may be more details about ratings than usual. I am assuming there will be a separate section then for Chart history (or something similar), assuming some of the songs chart on Billboard? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings are in! Probably because they were highly anticipated. And pretty impressive: the highest-rated scripted TV episode in three years! :D I've started a separate section, but feel free to move things around if certain things work out better. :) Yves (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, very impressive viewership! It'll be interesting to see how it does internationally, in the countries without such an enormous lead-in.
Re: charts, I usually just add a summary onto the end of "Production", after the sentence about which ones were released as singles, but it's not the best fit in the world. It would probably make for a short section, but separating "Chart history" or "Commercial performance" or similar is a pretty good idea. Frickative 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article link: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/02/glee_super_bowl_ep.html --Another Believer (Talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot change question

[edit]

The March 24 change by 75.10.149.199 looks odd to me: I don't remember this, and it certainly didn't happen late in the episode. I also wonder if it's necessary to mention the cannon yet again even if that was the reason; Sue was mainly pissed about being told no by Figgins and Will. The reason I'm not hitting "Undo" myself is that I wanted to be sure my impressions of both the episode and of editing these entries match. (I did make a Karofsky correction in that paragraph while i was there, which I hope doesn't mess up the possibility of an Undo if it is necessary.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sue_Sylvester_Shuffle&oldid=1204224430"