Talk:S-Town

Podcasting Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information 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.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swiftlyediting13. Peer reviewers: Annacapcourse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews only mixed?

It seems really ungenerous to call the reviews "mixed." There were certainly a lot of critiques of the arguably voyeuristic aspect to the podcast, but even most of those called it an extraordinary piece of journalism. Sdkb (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, this sounds like a stretch of semantics bordering on flat-out inaccuracy. i've put a "disputed" flag on it. k kisses 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reception" section was clearly written by someone who disliked the podcast. There is no way it is representative of the critical response (several paragraphs of negative commentary, without a single quote from any of the majority positive reviews). I might have a go at reworking it in a few days. --Loeba (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K kisses:@Loeba: Good thought adding the disputed flag. Since the issue affects the whole section and still hasn't been addressed, I added a more prominent flag. Eventually I may get around to rewriting the section. - Sdkb (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the reviews are mixed, the verbiage is peculiar. The examples given tend to be something critical of the morals of those behind the podcast than actual critiques of its story-telling.

I think a better way to frame this information, which I think is valid to include, would be to have a “controversy” tab (if there isn’t already one) and list those blurbs from reviews there.

Another solution is to say “the podcast received positive reviews, although some reviewers questioned the morality of the podcasts’ making and/or existence.”

Searching “s town podcast review” yields a lot of the “mixed” sort of reviews that make me think the initial contributor didn’t have any axe to grind and was being fair. BurtFiasco (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time has changed this, but a quick google of that exact phrase yields only one negative review in the first dozen or so hits - the rest are overwhelmingly positive. I think acknowledging the moral ambiguity angle is good, but calling the reviews "mixed" seems to twist reality. Kalethan (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]