Talk:The Same Boat

Themes section
At first, the themes section looked really good, then with closer inspection it reads like an essay, inappropriate for Wikipedia. The reason it sounds like an essay is because all of it is just lifted from the sources cited which is a WP:COPYVIO. Unless the editor who added it, plans on completely rewritting it, I'll be deleting it soon. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notes, you're the first editor to offer me any feedback. I think this was the first time I added a section and cited sources.  I'm sorry that you felt you had to delete the entire section.  (Frankly, 22 minutes between the above notice and deletion wouldn't have been enough time for me to do a complete rewrite under the best of circumstances.)  In your opinion, if I attempt a rewrite, should I have put more of the cited material in "quotes" and additionally referenced the original writer, paraphrased it, or completely put it in my own words?  I was worried that through choice of language I might be changing the original meaning too much and that would make it read like an opinion piece.  (I'm confused what you mean about an essay; it sounds like you're saying that all essays are copyright violations.) Reidgreg (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had originally intended to leave it as is for at least a few days, then I reread the section and felt I could just move some of the parts to the critical reception section. The section sounded like an essay/opinion piece because the words were directly taken from the authors of the sources. Copyright violations are anything that is copied word-for-word from another source, which the section was full of. Because Wikipedia is written in a neutral point-of-view, the section's tone is very unencyclopedic. It's okay to present opinions, but it has to be clear it's an opinion of a critic, and not just a statement without attribution. And also, the section can't just be rectified by slapping every statement within quotes. It needs an entire rewrite, more statements in neutral phrasing, removal of rehasing of plot information (because there's already a plot and background section that covers this). On a similar note, I noticed "The Next World" seems to have the same problem. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's OK. I didn't think it was so bad that it'd be better to start over from scratch, but I was planning to revisit it this week and try to improve on it (maybe after soliciting some other opinions).  I suppose at the time I'd thought that citing was enough to attribute and source the opinion(s), and I could have been clearer about that in the prose.  I was worried about the feminism section for which I could only find one non-blogger source, but I felt the significance of the theme was enough to include it even if I could only make the one citation.  (BTW, I wrote the background section and added it at the same time to support the plot and themes, so the article would be understandable to someone who had never watched TWD.)  I feel I'll have to delay a possible rewrite until I have a better idea of what you're trying to communicate to me and exactly how it should be written, though at the moment I'm considering whether I should just DGAF and walk away from this.  I'm clearly out of my depth.  You can find my contributions here if you'd like to check more of my edits. Reidgreg (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Background section
The background section seems not only unnecessary but also inappropriate for this article. If someone would like to know what the 'background' of this episode is, they can read the main Walking Dead article, or the articles about the previous episodes; that is, after all, what those articles are for. Having this section takes up quite a bit of space in the article and is distracting to individuals who come here simply to read about this specific episode, which takes away from the primary purpose of this article, which is to provide information about this episode alone. I very strongly believe this entire section needs to be removed. 98.255.225.73 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)