Talk:The Crown (TV series)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by ~2026-18159-68 in topic Acuruasity of the series the crownseeo
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Crown (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Lead
edit@Nyxaros, will you please do me the favour of explaining the errors I've made in the lead, as I can't see them. Thank you A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I guess the most prominent of them were, as I wrote in the edit summary, "mixed-to-positive" and "mixed-to-negative" additions and the removal of cast members. It doesn't matter anyway, they were reverted and the lead is OK now. ภץאคгöร 17:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have any objections to "mixed-to-positive" and "mixed-to-negative" being changed so long as the wording is accurate, but I disagree that the lead is currently good. In particular, the paragraph on the cast is too detailed–a single example would suffice. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nyxaros, unless you can give a more substantial reason for your reversions than 'bad writing' I'll have to escalate this disupte. Your reasoning is not good enough. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you think your unsourced, poorly written WP:SYNTH contribution ("generally positive critical reviews", "particularly from the fourth season." [...]) with an unreliable source (WP:FORBESCON) is
"good enough"
? I don't have to explain everything all the time. If your goal is to really make it shorter, do it. If it includes the rest it will be reverted. ภץאคгöร 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)- Yes, I do think my contributions are good enough. My synthesis of the critical response and the criticism of the series' historical accuracy is accurate and reflects what is in the article body. I removed the Forbes source once you pointed out that it is considered unreliable by the community.
- Please do not threaten to revert my edits. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You have just reverted part of my lead, claiming that the article body does not support the description of the sixth series as 'mixed' or criticisms of the series' historical accuracy being particularly prominent from the fourth season. The body says:
- For the first part of the sixth season, Rotten Tomatoes reports 55% approval from 62 reviews, with an average rating of 6.2/10. On Metacritic, the season holds a score of 61 out of 100 based on 29 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
- Scores of 55% and 61/100 can be described as 'mixed'. It's worth noting that, notwithstanding Metacritic's description, 14 of its reviews are categorised as 'positive', 13 as 'mixed', and 2 as 'bad'.
- It also says:
- However, the series has also received backlash, especially from British critics and the royal family. British reviewers have criticised the fourth season for being "inaccurate" and "anti-monarchy". Simon Jenkins writing for The Guardian described it as "fake history", "reality hijacked as propaganda, and a cowardly abuse of artistic licence" which fabricated history to suit its own preconceived narrative, and argued that "Morgan could have made his point truthfully". Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith criticised the inaccuracies and negative portrayal of the royal family, stating, "Because The Crown is such a lavish and expensive production, so beautifully acted and cleverly written, and so much attention has been paid to visual details about historical events, viewers are tricked into believing that what they are seeing actually happened", concluding that "while the earlier seasons were period pieces, this is recent history, so it seems more cruel in its false depictions". Following some negative reactions to the fourth season, British culture secretary Oliver Dowden suggested that the series should have a fiction warning at the beginning as a disclaimer.
- Both sections could do with a re-write, but they are reliably sourced within the article. I will give you some time to respond, and if you do not I will re-instate my wording. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot add a statement at your own request that the source does not specify. 55% Tomatometer is not "mixed", nor is 61/100 Metascore. It is, on the contrary, "generally favorable". You removed historical inaccuracies and left some of what is relevant to the fourth season, this does not mean that the fourth was criticised in particular. As I mentioned, if you are actually going to lengthen the lead you wanted to shorten, at least add the necessary reliable sources and try to represent them correctly. Otherwise, I or someone else will revert your changes or add various templates. See WP:REFDD. That's all from me. ภץאคгöร 18:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- 55% on Rotten Tomatoes is a 'rotten' score, and while 61 on Metacritic is officially described as "generally favourable" it is the lowest score in that band – 60 is 'mixed or average'. I noted above that 14 of the Metacritic reviews are categorised as 'positive', 13 as 'mixed', and 2 as 'bad', so taken together it's fair to call the aggregated reviews "mixed".
- Criticism of the series' historical accuracy did increase during the fourth season. Having re-read that section of the body I concede that it was implicit rather than explicit, but in my recent edit I've added a source which states: "There were early grumblings about speculative storylines [...] The backlash had ramped up by the fourth season." I think that makes it clearer that, while there has been some criticism of accuracy from the start, it was particularly intense from the fourth season. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot add a statement at your own request that the source does not specify. 55% Tomatometer is not "mixed", nor is 61/100 Metascore. It is, on the contrary, "generally favorable". You removed historical inaccuracies and left some of what is relevant to the fourth season, this does not mean that the fourth was criticised in particular. As I mentioned, if you are actually going to lengthen the lead you wanted to shorten, at least add the necessary reliable sources and try to represent them correctly. Otherwise, I or someone else will revert your changes or add various templates. See WP:REFDD. That's all from me. ภץאคгöร 18:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you think your unsourced, poorly written WP:SYNTH contribution ("generally positive critical reviews", "particularly from the fourth season." [...]) with an unreliable source (WP:FORBESCON) is
Actors
editWhat about Pip Torrens as Tommy Lascelles - that was a key role?? 2001:8003:3085:B801:CC03:395:F0EA:D19A (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Social Media FA25
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2025 and 2 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stubblefieldj (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Stubblefieldj (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

