Talk:Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences)

Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences) 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
Date	Process	Result
November 14, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Television: Episode coverage

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences episode)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugar & Spice (Picket Fences). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]