Talk:Kamen Rider Stronger

All the character links under "Characters" are dead. They just lead back to this article or the main Kamen Rider article, rendering them effectively useless. Takeshi357 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ratings
What are the sources to Kamen Rider Stronger having low ratings? I've never really seen actual numbers and the final episode of Stronger does indeed say "Farewell Kamen Riders" after showing a montoge of footage from Kamen Rider~Amazon set to the themes of Kamen Rider and V3. So that would lead one to assume that it was intended to be the final series. Kazuhara 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're talking about two different things. Whether the series was intended to be the last is a subject of the debate, nobody questions that Toei/Ishinomiri/TBS was unhappy with the franchise, otherwise they wouldn't have waited four years between Stronger to produce New Kamen Rider. By the time the series was nearing its end, the production team knew that they wouldn't be producing another series for some time. Regardless, according to August Ragone, it was NET's broadcast of Himitsu Sentai Goranger that led to the downfall of Stronger&mdash; the two aired in direct competition with each other. See and, containing insights from tokusatsu historian August Ragone and others, including one Tetsuo Takagi who personally verifies the competition between the two and the wild success of Goranger. These two references are also used as footnotes in the main article text. If there's any way you think you can make the text more clear, please edit it.--Sean Black 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed
This article does not meet all of the criteria for good article status. The writing of the article is questionable, with passages obviously taken from other sources, a few words changed around, then put back in a form still recognizable from the source. Since there are no citations whatsoever, another reason this article fails, I simply looked at the references and saw how some had been minimally altered and replaced. The references themselves are questionable: using a thread from a discussion isn't a reliable source. Because no citations exist, and the references listed are not necessarily reliable, it seems that this article might also be the result of original research. I am also concerned with minor issues, such as the use of spoilers without warning. Furthermore, all of the research seems to be from a fan site, and while the enthusiasm of this site has been toned down, the article seems overly positive, and possibly non-NPOV, given that, for example, the poor ratings the show received are explained away by when the show aired, giving a forum discussion as reference, and provides no criticism of the show: perhaps it got bad ratings because people didn't like the show. Significant ongoing edits since the nomination of this article make its stability questionable. I encourage the editors of this article to change and resubmit this article for consideration for GA status, but I regret it does not meet the standards in its present form. Chuchunezumi 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to your claims in turn:
 * What the hell? How dare you accuse me of copyright infringement without evidence to back it up.
 * "No citations whatsoever" ? Show me one thing that isn't sourced.
 * There is no "criticism" of the show because I could not find any references for such a thing. Had I done so, I would have included it.
 * Most of the technical and production information comes from the IMDb; the "fansites" simply provide plot and character details. This is a better references than simply using the show itself as a source, as would have most likely happened otherwise.
 * Oh, please. The article has been edited a few times in the past week or two, but it's perfectly "stable". The changes are either minor or simply the addition of undisputed content.
 * --SB | T 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not up for discussion. If you disagree with my assessment, then request a review or renominate it.  I recommend you reread the criteria for good article status, and read Citing sources. Chuchunezumi 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Instead of weaseling your way out of this after I pointed out the flaws in your logic and the outright lies in your statement, why don't you defend your assessment? --SB | T 03:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it quite appalling that you would make accusations of copyright infringement without even providing evidence, and then refusing to back it up. jgp TC 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)