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 Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
There needs to be some serious editing going on in regards to "The A.V. Club" getting their reviews under the "reception" section for a number of t.v. shows and movies. Reception is for CONTEMPORARY reviews of THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL WORK WAS PUBISHED/PRODUCED. The A.V. Club wasn't around until 1993, and their "retro reviews" do not count as a "contemporary review" of the content in question. Because I am seeing this happen with more than just Star Trek, it seems to me that the A.V. Club is running a marketing campaign on wikipedia to get free publicity for their reviews. Something needs to be done to clean this bs up. If they reviewed the material when it first came out, then so be it, but unless The A.V. Club has a time machine, any report of their "reviews" in ANY "reception section" of wikipedia are out of place and do not count as a contemporary account of the reception for that day and age. Reception is a VERY CRITICALLY important aspect of understanding how the public at large viewed something during THAT ERA.
2601:280:4480:4810:540D:C4C8:5014:8825 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that and I've remarked in the comments about other episodes that the "Reception" section needs to be pared down, as well as the "Plot" section. It seems to me, as to you, that A.V. Club's "rankings" are post hoc and have little to do with the reception of the episode. I was a Star Trek fan in my teens, and I saw the first broadcast of this and thought it was juvenile and tried to make a point in a silly way. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
