Talk:Curiosity Stream

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Media Coverage Section

I know the article has been said to be promotional before, but to me the "media coverage" section appears to be irrelevant and purely promotional - it functions more like advertising, rather than actually talking about why it was covered on those news outlets. Kczaj (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Nominations section

This section reads entirely as an advertisement and you won't find a section alike it on the pages of other studios.

Figured it needed to be put on the Talk page prior to being done but who else is up for deletion of the whole section? AidenTEM (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this section needs to be completely removed. One example, the Netflix article, has an extensive awards section, and also includes nominations similar to this page. I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate to include all awards, so the criteria should be limited to notable awards. If the award has its own Wikipedia article, that seems worthy of inclusion here even it's only a nomination. I'll remove the non-notable ones from this list and it looks like that should take care of the advert. issue as well. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here. 2601:5CE:4480:D56F:A0D3:F4A3:3187:E696 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than there still likely being a couple of bits of promotional language to find and fix, I agree with you. It does somewhat make sense for a studio that doesn't have a full unbiased history to just put the awards in the same place, although I do note that the awards aren't even really mentioned on the pages of Lionsgate and Walt Disney Studios. AidenTEM (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoodaba for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Passthepopcorn (talk · contribs), Henlord12 (talk · contribs), MiniCroquette21 (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarioGom, thank you for starting this discussion. I reviewed the edits from the users you identified and am providing my review below.

User edits

Edits on the page from Passthepopcorn (in bold & underlined):

Curiosity Stream is an American media company and subscription video streaming service that offers documentary programming including films, series, and TV shows. It was launched in 2015 by the founder of the Discovery Channel, John S. Hendricks. As of 2021 it had approximately 20 million subscribers worldwide across its direct and bundled platforms.

Curiosity Stream produces original documentaries and series including Royals: Keeping the Crown, The History of Home, Miniverse, Stephen Hawking's Favorite Places, David Attenborough's Light on Earth, and Deep Time History; and additionally features content from producers such as the BBC and NHK.

John Hendricks, who founded Discovery in 1982, started Curiosity Stream as a stand-alone OTT media service in March 2015. The service expanded distribution to Amazon Channels, and then in 2017, had its first distribution deal with a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) when it became available on Comcast's set-top box VOD platform and the MSO's Xfinity Stream app/portal.

In June 2018, Clint Stinchcomb was appointed president and CEO of the company, after first joining Curiosity Stream in 2017 as Chief Distribution Officer. He is also the co-founder and former CEO of Poker Central. Previously Stinchcomb held positions as managing director of Worldwide Media Group (WMG) and executive VP and GM of Discovery Communications' Emerging Television Networks.

Edits on the page from Henlord12:

No edits

Edits on the page from MiniCroquette21:

In June 2020, Curiosity Stream signed a partnership with wildlife production company Doclights to add 50 original nature documentaries to SVOD and pay-TV platforms. Programs include Cheetah: Beating the Odds; Hidden Australia; These Birds Were Made for Walking; Jaguar: King of the Jungle; Magical Fjords; Meet the Meerkats; Meet the Marsupials; Puma: The Ghost Cat; and, Sloth Bear: Birth of A Prince.

Review of edits

Edits from Passthepopcorn: Remove became available on Comcast's set-top box VOD platform and the MSO's Xfinity Stream app/portal; the rest is neutral and supported by the sources
There are no edits from Henlord12 in the article. This was the only edit by that user which was adding a link to a non-existent article.
Edits from MiniCroquette21: The first line is neutral, but the list of programs seems excessive. Remove Programs include Cheetah: Beating the Odds; Hidden Australia; These Birds Were Made for Walking; Jaguar: King of the Jungle; Magical Fjords; Meet the Meerkats; Meet the Marsupials; Puma: The Ghost Cat; and, Sloth Bear: Birth of A Prince.

In summary

Once the edits above are removed, the rest of these users' edits pose no concerns. The flag can be removed once these edits are removed, IMO. WyldEys (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Additionally to improve the article:

In the lead, I'd trim the list of programmes to only those that have a blue link.
The history section needs trimming of minor details (not every partnership is notable, we don't need to know about every change of directors) and reworded to avoid the proseline.
The Programmes section also has proseline issues and mentions too many specifics, reword it to be mostly about the type of programming. I'm not sure about the table there, I'd want opinion from editors who work in this topic area before making changes to it though.
The Viewership and partners section can go, the first paragraph should me merged somewhere else (history maybe?) but I see no value in the rest.
The Awards and nominations section needs sources. I don't have an opinion about the actual content if the section though, get the opinions of someone familiar with the topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of this feedback, I will put this into a sandbox and work on suggested changes based on what was identified here. I'll come back here to share once thats done. WyldEys (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes

@Thryduulf:, I've drafted up these changes in my sandbox here: User:WyldEys/Curiosity Stream edits. And below are my notes to summarize what I did. If anyone agrees, it should be all set to copyand paste directly into the article. Otherwise, feel free to make edits to my sandbox.

I removed the original edits that I proposed from the editors of concern.
I trimmed any non-blue linked programs in the first section
I removed the board of director section. I rewrote this section to avoid the proseline issues. I removed some of the partnerships.
- Note here: It looks like a lot of these streaming services pages have a lot of partnership information. After looking around at what appears to be standard, I think the partnerships might be okay to leave in. Its really only a few compared to many more listed on other pages. Here is the sandbox version with less partnerships: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:WyldEys/Curiosity_Stream_edits&oldid=1058111569
I trimmed the Programs section down a little and fixed the proseline. I did leave in a few programs highlighted there because they appear to have a decent amount of coverage and / or invovle high profile people. For example, "Doug to the Rescue" is covered in Economic Times (India), Reuters, People, and others. Other streaming service pages also seem to include details about some specific programs so this doesn't seem too excessive IMO.
For the programming table, a lot of other streaming service pages have separate pages with similar tables. See List of Netflix original programming (Netflix actually has many of these, all listed in the See Also section of the Netflix page), List of Hulu original programming, List of Discovery+ original programming, List of Disney+ original programming, List of Star+ original programming.
- It looks like this should just be added to its own page. How long does the list need to be for its own page? I'm guessing this table is not an exhaustive list based on what I already removed from the page.
Viewership and partners section: I removed some of the excessive details and renamed this to Device Support and Availability. Similar to whats on Discovery+
Awards and Nominations: I saw this section was already discussed on the talk page, so Im guessing its ok to stay. I added sources and removed the BAFTA award which appeared to be incorrect.

The programming table might need to be moved to a new page, but besides that, I think this should cover everything. WyldEys (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, WyldEys has now been blocked as a Yoodaba sockpuppet. Java Hurricane 14:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on article review

Can this article please be reviewed with my notes above about the edits in question? WyldEys (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC process is not for requesting peer-review. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks for the clarification. RfC was recommended to me at the Teahouse so I thought that it was the right process. I'll give the peer review one a shot, thank you! WyldEys (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]