Talk:Entertainment Weekly

Needs?

This article needs work?

Expansion

I've written descriptions for most of the features of the magazine. I think it still needs a fuller "history" section, and maybe a full list of current staff. The magazine is so light that there isn't really much you can say. Does this article even need anything else? Jon Seitz 06:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

magazine

"Due to its relatively short features (typical articles run only 1 to 2 pages) and light content, the magazine is very commonly used for bathroom and waiting room reading." --i don't know about the statement...is that really a common sense about the magazine? HoneyBee 06:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I really agree with that statement. I more often see things like People and Sunset in waiting rooms; in fact, I don't know that I've ever seen it in a waiting room. Stubblyhead 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read it in a few waiting rooms, but I have to say: couldn't one argue that MANY magazines are suitable for bathroom and waiting room reading? I was pretty amused when I read that in this entry. 67.162.166.143 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How long has EW been using the acronym "b.o." for Box Office? The June 30th issue is the first I've seen use it...

Cleanup

I would like to think this would be obvious, but in case it's not, the article features the following wiki sins that require cleanup:

• tense/number mismatches
• misspellings
• imprecise colloquialisms ("wonky", etc.)
• informal tone
• too many red links that aren't likely to become articles anytime soon, mostly named individuals, and many other similarly named persons who aren't linked at all
• other items requiring links, like named publications
• "random" capitalization and words inexplicably in ALL CAPS
• improper rendering of publication titles
• lack of critical review, and any info that wouldn't have come directly from an EW marketing flack

-- Canonblack 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I started working on the second paragraph of the intro, which was totally NPOV, like a friend of the magazine's founder had written it. I took out some of the most egregious stuff, but it's still a grusomely bad paragraph. I couldn't even understand what some of it is trying to say. I'm giving up for now. Ssilvers 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean up some awkward phrasing in the first half of the article, and hope it will be a noticeable improvement.

List of people on the cover

Is there someone willing to take this lengthy list out of the main article and make it into a list? Something like "People featured on the cover of Entertainment Weekly", that this article could then link to? - 1/31/06

Bias?

I find it odd that there is no mention in this article to the fact that EW is published by a huge conglomerate that also happens to release movies, DVDs, TV shows, and albums that are critically reviewed - i.e. it's nothing more than ads for Time-Warner's own products.

yes I agree there is substantial evidence for this and it should be pretty easy to find a source saying so. this is the magazine that gave disaster movie a C. I mean come on, that's crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.65.254 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They gave Nickelback's album "All the Right Reasons" a 80/100 saying that they're sound had evolved and that they were tougher and meaner... It is the same bland corporate rock garbage (and also indistinguishable from they're previous efforts and... surprise! Guess which record company they were signed to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.143.79 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)