Talk:Hannah Gadsby: Nanette

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Hannah Gadsby: Nanette is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

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

footnote #2 is a broken link[edit]

I am not sure what to do about this but footnote #2 video is "marked as private":

Late Night with Seth Meyers|publisher=YouTube|title=Hannah Gadsby Got Into Comedy Because of a Broken Wrist|date=15 June 2018|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdvTDlGLjCQ%7Caccess-date=21 July 2018}}

Thanks. I've just added a note to the citation for now. Ideally someone will find another citation that supports the content. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storytelling[edit]

I'm confused by the sentence "In Nanette, Gadsby further plays on the conventions of comedy by incorporating storytelling into her routine." This does not make sense to me because many comedians rely heavily on storytelling, and joke telling is secondary to the story telling, so it is not really unconventional at all. Maybe the Content/Synopsis/Plot section shouldn't have subsection headings, and maybe that specific sentence should be omitted? -- 109.78.209.61 (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence makes perfect sense. "plays on the conventions" doesn't mean "unconventional". 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence doesn't make sense. It is also not based on any reliable sources, and instead is the personal interpretation of the show's content by a Wikipedia editor, which is a form of original research. The whole section should probably be removed or rewritten based on reliable sources or else to avoid interpretation of the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the second opinions. I needed some perspective before I made an attempt to rewrite it.[1] Longer explanation of my edit: I removed the aforementioned line and kept most of the rest. I have made an attempt to rewrite the "Content" section (and subsections) as a single "Synopsis" of the show and to make it a little more coherent and more focussed on the show (just the plot please). I pushed the comment about what she said after the show (not quitting) out into a footnote, because what happened after it is not directly part of the show. I removed/merged some subsection headings, they seemed excessive and the sections would need to be considerably longer (multiple paragraphs at least) to justify so many subsection headings. WP:OVERSECTION. (I left some anchors, mostly for structure for when the next person rewrites it.) I moved the Peabody Awards in the Awards/Accolades section because it is an Award. The article seemed like it was trying to make some distinction between the original live show and the version filmed for Netflix, but the article does not yet contain enough content to support that separation (there's nothing to indicate or even suggest there were any substantial or significant differences). As always this is Wikipedia and I expect people will mercilessly rewrite it, but I hope at least some of what I've attempted to do will be seen as an improvement. -- 109.78.209.61 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes user ratings[edit]

A number of recent edits have attempted to add information about recent user ratings scores of this work on Rotten Tomatoes, a site that's been noted in other forums as subject to brigading and other forms of statistical gaming. As I write this, there's no mention of the user ratings on the current article. If one is ever added, the surge of added user ratings between April and November 2019 (both dates well after initial release) that dropped the audience score from 65% to 22% (as viewable on Wayback machine snapshots) should be noted. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about brigading. The egregious gaming effort should be kept from the article unless and until a reliable WP:SECONDARY source publishes something about it. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird how "right wing friendly" content doesn't suffer from the same level of brigading. 47.20.123.26 (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More people still trying to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores.[2] Theories about brigading or review bombing are utterly irrelevant, audiences scores from Rotten Tomatoes etc should not be added to the article at all because of WP:UGC and WP:RS. -- 109.79.165.251 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]