Talk:Fresh Off the Boat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazminbobby, S.mace.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

The second sentence is nonsensical: "It is the first American television situation comedy starring an Asian-American family whose predecessors emigrated from the industrialized developed high-tech "Asian Economic Tiger" of Taiwan as protagonists to air on network primetime since Margaret Cho's All American Girl, which aired for one season in 1994.[6]"

It is pretty obvious that two sentences have been thrown in a blender here -- one about the ethnic origin of the family and one about it being the first sitcom to feature an Asian-American family since Cho's series. The resulting sentence implies that Cho is of Taiwanese descent, whereas anyone familiar with her comedy knows her family is of Korean origin. Here is how the sentence should read:

"It features an Asian-American family whose predecessors emigrated from the industrialized developed high-tech "Asian Economic Tiger" of Taiwan. It is the first American television situation comedy starring an Asian family as protagonists to air on network primetime since Margaret Cho's All American Girl, which aired for one season in 1994.[6]"

I would change it myself, but I am unclear on how to edit the opening paragraph. Hope somebody can take care of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasroche (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

ep 2

lists luna blaise (babe neighbor nicole) in the credits at the end. not just IMDB, etc., but actually on TV.

yet i see no signs of her. wasn't her grand entrance in ep 3 indeed the first of her? why on earth is she in ep 2 creds? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ep 6

was listed as "Shaq Fu" here last week!

just a typo, or did they indeed change the name? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Diversity" and "Hegemonic Representation"

There are some interesting sections in this article (see title), but the sections are written like bad freshman essays, complete with biased and unsourced thesis statements (e.g. "This sitcom is a great example of hegemonic representation in America"). I tried to cut down one sentence that was particularly bad, but these sections need to be massaged quite a bit.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I went though both of those sections, the "Re-occurring tropes" section, and each of their sources. One of the sources used was another wikia site, so whoever edited those sections clearly needs a better understanding of what constitutes a "reliable source". It was clear that whoever wrote those sections does not fully understand how to write a professional article (using contractions in what should be a professional essay), and does not know that speaking on behalf of an entire ethnic group is wrong (speaking on behalf of the majority of the show's Asian-American viewers without giving a source for this overgeneralized perspective). One of the articles cited was one published in 2008 (half a decade before "Fresh Off the Boat" was published as a book!) and several sentences were off-topic and pertained to the film "The Sixteen Candles". The show mocks "The Sixteen Candles" in one of its episodes, but the editor would not know this. Judging by the content of the edit, he/she only saw the first episode of the show, as all of the unsourced, unprofessional criticisms pertained to just the first episode of the show.

With all of these biased, unsourced statements in the article, I have taken it upon myself to delete them and explain my reasons for doing so. (Talk) 5:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Chinese names"

I think these were listed in an episode (season 1, maybe?) but

a) the current "sourcing" is a complete fabrication: the linked sources say absolutely nothing about the characters' Chinese names;

b) these are patently wrong: Eddie's surname (the first word in his Chinese name) is obviously some form of Huang, not "Chungi", which isn't remotely a Chinese surname in any dialect (even in dialectical non-pinyin transcriptions, where it would need to look something like Chung-i and involve two characters, which patently isn't the case here);

c) we should use pinyin transcriptions (WP:MOS-ZH) unless there is an official source from the show (official guides, webpages, network—not autogenerated—subtitles)

d) and they'll need sourcing: we shouldn't copy the real Chinese names of Mr Huang's family unless they've appeared in the show or its official paraphernalia.

In the meantime, removing them as patently unsourced and (in at least the one case) obviously mistaken. — LlywelynII 03:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Edwyn"

is probably right as Eddie's formal name (the actual author/lawyer/chef/blogger is formally Edwyn Charles Huang) but again the current source does not support that at all. It just calls the character Eddie Huang. It can be used as a source that Jeff Yang is the actor but not for the character's supposed full name. — LlywelynII 04:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New section on criticism of representation of source material

Two minor thoughts on this section recently added to the article.

• I think the third paragraph of the Development and production section reports some of Huang's thoughts on this question. Some of that material might moved to this section, and a wikilink inserted in its place? The citations include an interview in the Epoch Times that would be salient. But it could require a person who reads Chinese to get more information.
• Criticism of representation of source material is a nicely descriptive title for the new section, but there ought to be something better. But I haven't thought of a better one, I said unhelpfully.

-- M.boli (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fresh Off the Boat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take this one. I've looked over the quickfail criteria and I believe we can go ahead with a review, but it's looking like the article might need a bit of work. I see the show's finale is approaching but I'm not too concerned about stability issues, as this is a six-season show and the finale might only warrant a paragraph or so on the main page, if that. The most obvious issue here is the {{More citations}} tag under "Awards and nominations", but this is easily fixed—many of the appropriate citations for the awards are found on the award pages linked. I have some initial thoughts about how the "Production" and "Critical response" sections can be reworked but I'll go through now and give a full review.

(By the way, I'm doing the review as part of the 2020 WikiCup.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Not checked 2b/2c yet.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Premise

• Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the citations here are accomplishing. Some of them (e.g. #6, Deadline) don't actually seem to be verifying any of the content they're cited for, and most of the content seems to be directly verifiable from the primary source of the program itself.

I fixed all of the citations to make sure they support the information stated. My original intention with the citations was to make sure the summaries didn't contain too much editorializing, but if they're not necessary, I can remove them. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough – I've no problem with the citations left in, so let's keep them. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph is too wordy—I'd take out the "in 1995" and the 2000 paragraph and replace them with a clause at the beginning of the premise, "Set between 1995 and 2000", or "In the 1990s".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• We can't just have a paragraph about season 2 and end it there. If the program has season arcs then it'd be good to have between a sentence and a paragraph for each season, explaining the main storylines. If storylines overlap beyond seasons, we could have between a sentence and a paragraph of the main storylines of each main character, or just the main storylines overall. This could all fit under "Premise" or could break out into a new section (e.g. "Season synopses" as in GA The Office (American TV series)).

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, these are looking really good. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cast and characters

• Eddie's in high school, right? Just some rough indication of his age goes a long way to someone who's reading about the show for the first time—say he's a teenager, or in high school, or something.

It's difficult to annotate an age range because he starts the series as an eleven-year-old, and he would be graduating high school during the end, so I'm not sure which ages are appropriate to annotate. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, particularly as we describe him as the "oldest" I think we need something to show he's not, say, in his 20s. I think anything sensible would be appropriate e.g. "aged eleven in season one" or "The show follows his journey from eleven to __ years old" or "attending ___ school and later high school" (I have no idea how the American school system works). — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I just found this recap of a season two episode on Vulture where the columnist refers to Eddie as a preteen. How does this sound–The show follows his journey from his preteen years to his senior year of high school.? KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that would definitely work! — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done! KyleJoan^talk 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• "season two–present" can be "season two–six" or "seasons two onwards" now, right (same for "three–")? This affects the bullet points for Jenny, Honey and Marvin.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• "ESL" needs a link or to be spelled out as "English as a second language" as it may not be obvious to everyone.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's not mentioned that Huang is the narrator (in the body) until we reach "Eddie Huang reduced his involvement with the series, including no longer being the narrator". I think the narrator warrants inclusion in this section.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• [[tiger parenting|tough love]] is a bit of an Easter egg link—just remove the link.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good prose overall, a well-written section!

Production

• This EW source currently referenced in the article some great information that we're not including, like Khan's comments "We sort of have the burden of an entire group's representation" or that "Women who don't apologize" are her favourite characters to write. It also links to this interview with Khan which is worth including some information from. I'd say we need to mention that Khan had recently finished working on the sitcom Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 and then some mention of the information it gives about the title change, the focus-testing of the pilot, the accents and anything else that seems like basic info. Ideally, we want to paraphrase or write some concrete details in our own words rather than quote in blocks, but some quotes are acceptable.

 Done. I added statements by Wu and Khan regarding their approaches to the construction of their respective roles. I wanted to refrain from adding too many to meet DUE. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Similarly, the Time interview with Wu is wasted as an inline citation for Huang being a mother. That doesn't need an inline citation, and instead some of the interview material belongs under the "Production" section.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Retooling" section shouldn't be in bullet points, but in prose as a couple of paragraphs.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Renewals" section looks great—no changes needed.
• The "Production" section overall needs some bulking out. I understand if details are not available for everything I'm about to mention, but as much as possible should be included: writing room processes; directors (ones who reoccur or particularly notable ones) or directing styles or filming choices (infobox says single camera); any details about filming or studios which are particular to the show; changes made in seasons 3 to 6, if any; music

 Done. The only info I could find were filming details and recurring directors. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, new stuff looks good and we can only say as much as sources do. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Episodes

• The colour choices don't look great. Unless there's a particular reason for them, I think just a rainbow style like QI has is best for accessibility. This is more a problem with List of Fresh Off the Boat episodes, though, so I'm not going to take it into account for the GA criteria.

I'm not crazy about them either, to be honest. I'll see if I can start a discussion on changing them once I'm done with this GA! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, someone recently pointed out to me that MOS:TV says Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons, so maybe my rainbow suggestion isn't the best solution, but anyway, this isn't important to the GA review. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Distribution

• "Premiere" is a common word so [[premiere|world premiere]] can be de-linked.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mention that Freeform / Up TV are American channels.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Has the season 5 DVD been released yet?

I found info on the release, so  Done! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• No major issues here!

Reception

• For Rotten Tomatoes, the 92% figure is actually for season 1, not the whole show. It's 94% overall. Normally we might mention each season's score individually, but it's not really a good statistic unless there's 20 or more critics aggregated.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The awards/noms for Wu don't need to be mentioned under "Critical response", but it looks like the EWwy is another one to add to "Awards and nominations".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Critical response" section looks a bit unstructured and disorganised at the moment. It seems to me that there's four topics currently listed:
  • Asian-American representation: gather all this together in two or three consecutive paragraphs, maybe structured by visibility/lack of prior representation, then praise of the representation, then criticism of it.
  • Comparison to the memoir, currently only by Nussbaum. There's got to be more commentary about this by other reviewers—bulking this out into a paragraph would be good.
  • Comparisons to other media. If a comparison is worth noting then it's worth noting what was compared—the style of humour, or the Asian-American characters etc. For each piece of media currently listed, either expand it into a full sentence (e.g. "2000s sitcom Malcolm in the Middle was seen as similar to Fresh Off the Boat in its ...") or remove it.
  • Reception to acting. Surely there's got to be a lot more to say than that Wu was praised. What about Wu's character was praised in particular? Then, lack of critical reception to Eddie's character is something sorely missing here. And then, I'd expect some of the other characters to have had particular aspects or storylines which were particularly praised or criticised.

 Done. This was a tricky one, but I think made significant progress on the organization and the cohesion of this section. The representation bit now has three quotes of why the series is significant in advancing the concept; comparisons to other sitcoms contain specific aspects; positive responses to Wu as well as the memoir comparisons are more elaborate. Regarding reception to other actors and characters, most of the articles related to the performances and characterization that I found are reviews of the pilot praised the cast as a whole and noted how the series needed time to develop Eddie as a character, so I wasn't sure if annotating that met DUE. Reception to Wu, on the other hand, was incredibly extensive. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the critical reception is always the hardest section to work on. Sometimes I find it really boring and lengthy, but other times it can be really interesting to compare lots of different critics' opinions, and it's a skill I'm trying to improve. I don't know if you've come across Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections before, but it's well worth reading the advice and comparing one of its before/after examples. Anyway, the critical reception here now meets GA standards, and thanks for the major improvement to it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be sure to give the essay a read. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "Chinese media" paragraph doesn't quite seem to fit in. If you can get accurate enough translations of some reviews, it might be interesting to have a line like "Chinese critics generally found that ..." or include some individual reviewers. If not, just the English reviews are fine. If we have any details about where/if Fresh Off the Boat is legally available in China, that's something to mention under "Broadcast".

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ratings table looks great.

Awards and nominations

• I see the referencing has been fixed as I've been writing this review, so thanks!

Lead

• The lead will need some rewriting to reflect the body with due weight, but I'd save that until after working on the other sections. Infobox looks good. There's a weird nested template at File:Fresh Off the Boat intertitle.png but the image is acceptable under our NFCC.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, lead looks good. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

(I've made some small edits myself here, here and here.)

I've done some referencing spotchecks and things are looking good, but I'll need to do more once some more expansion of the content has been done.

I know this is a long review, but there's a fair few places where I think the article falls short of the GA criterion of broad coverage. I do think it's all fixable, but I understand it's a lot of work so I'll put the article  On hold for two weeks. If the points above are addressed sooner then I can pass it quicker, but after two weeks I'll look at the progress that has been made and consider whether enough has been done to satisfy the GA criteria. If you've got disagreements with anything I've suggested then respond inline and I'll be happy to reconsider or talk further. Thanks for all the work done so far on the article! — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this on, Bilorv. I've read all of your suggestions, and I plan to get started on revisions to incorporate them today. I'll be sure to notify you once everything is in order. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Thanks for the reply! I know it's only been a couple of days, but just thought I'd ping you in case this has slipped your mind. — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, Bilorv! I think the article is about ready for you to have another look at it. Thank you again! KyleJoan^talk 12:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks KyleJoan. The episode is in so much better shape – I know it must have been a lot of work. We're very nearly there but there's a couple of points I have on a last pass. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Round two

The article is now broad in coverage and well-written. I've checked sources for reliability, spotchecked a few inline citations and re-read the article and here are my only remaining comments (along with the one above beginning Hmmm, particularly as we describe him as the "oldest" I think we need something ...):

• Series synopsis says: [...] Eddie as he begins to "contemplate his future as the end of high school approaches for him." Quotes with no source mentioned in prose aren't good, but I think it'd be better to just rewrite this in our own words (e.g. [...] Eddie as he approaches the end of high school and needs to consider his future) rather than attributing the quote.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Source #77 (noreruns.net) doesn't look reliable. Worldcat might be the best source for the "Home media" section, though I was surprised to see WP:RSP say that Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.).

I replaced the source with an article from PopMatters. I was surprised to see . . . I was surprised to see that as well! At first, I thought the contrary because it is listed in red, but then upon a further read, apparently it's not discouraged to cite it for past releases, yeah? KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Source #134 (Red Carpet Report) only mentions the Young Entertainer Award wins and not the nominations, as far as I can see.

 Done. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reference formatting is inconsistent (works not always mentioned, and sometimes linked and sometimes not), but this isn't a GA criteria problem.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, everything has now been fixed! Thanks again for all the work you've done, and I hope you feel like the article has improved over the review. :) Pass for GA. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. All of your suggestions helped make the article so much more comprehensive as well as cohesive. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 11:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the television sitcom Fresh Off the Boat is the longest-running Asian American family sitcom in television history? Source: ABC’s Fresh Off the Boat, the longest-running sitcom about an Asian-American family in broadcast television history, will end this season . . . Vulture.

Comment: I only have one DYK credit, so I'm wondering if this nomination is exempt from QPQ. KyleJoan^talk 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by KyleJoan (talk). Self-nominated at 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

This article reached GA status on January 12 and is of sufficient length. It is well-cited, though the Earwig copyvio tool is down so I cannot use it to check for plagiarism. The hook is supported by the source and is interesting to me. No QPQ needed from nominator. Ruby2010 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Propose restoration of Chinese references

I don't entirely understand the removal of the two Chinese references.

• I propose to restore the sentence that FOTB is covered in the Chinese media and giving the Chinese name for the show. I think it should be restored under a new subhead in the Reception section. It was removed because one of the Good Article reviewers said that this part didn't "fit in" with the Critical Response subhead.

I see the point. But getting coverage in Chinese language media seems me a noteworthy aspect of the show's public reception. So I think the correct response isn't to remove the material, but to put in a new subhead.

BTW: The Chinese language wiki-page for FOTB lists two names, it appears that the two names are different in Taiwan and China media. This would be included. Also it seems that Fox TV in Taiwan was running FOTB, I'm not sure if that should be included in this article.

• A sentence in Eddie Huang's Response sub-head was removed, viz: Huang said that the all-comedy television show contrasted with his real family where his grandfather killed himself, his grandmother had bound feet, and state family services tried to remove the children from the home. This was removed on the grounds that Epoch Times is a biased news source, and last year got a Deprecated rating (which is quite bad) on the WP:RSP sources list.

Again I see the point. However the article is an interview with Huang about the topic of this paragraph, and that sentence is nearly a direct quote. What Huang said is: My grandmother bound her feet, my grandfather committed suicide, HRS tried to take us away from our parents.

This sentence goes to the heart of Huang's reaction to the show, and is in support of the preceding article sentence, so I think it is a shame to lose it. I think it is safe to use Epoch Times for a celebrity non-political quote, and I suggest re-inserting the material using the direct quote.

That's all. I'd like to put the material back with the changes I suggested, which I think address the reasons it was ripped out. But of course it is best to discuss first. M.boli (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion, M.boli!

Per MOS:OVERSECTION: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. That in mind, having a section that only lists the names of the show in other languages seems superfluous. I agree with Bilorv's point regarding how if there are individual reviews from Chinese media that we can find then those would be suitable for inclusion. Your point about Fox TV in Taiwan was running FOTB also seems like the perfect information to include under the broadcast section–given we can find a source to verify it.

Regarding the Epoch Times quote, I don't have a strong opinion on whether I believe it should be included or not, but seeing that we already have two direct quotes from Huang in the article, I don't believe it's that imperative that to add a third, especially since it's already pretty clear that Huang believes the series does not accurately depict his experiences.

Looking forward to hearing your response! KyleJoan^talk 09:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Righto! Thanks.

• In the Reception section I can add a subsection Reception in Chinese Media which will include some bits from a review or two from the TV show's first season, mention articles showing how FOTB controversies involving Eddie Huang and Constance Wu were covered, and show that the end of TV series was covered. It won't be an overly long paragraph. I think the main take-away is that part of FOTB's reception (or impact) is that Chinese media were following this English-language American TV show and its stars.
• Quoting Huang saying "great comics speak from pain" and FOTB is "an ambiguous cornstarch story" states his position. Adding his quote that his grandmother had bound feet, his grandfather killed himself, and HRS tried to take him away from his parents reinforces the point with sharp specificity rooted in his own personal story.

-- M.boli (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how a reception in Chinese media section would look, but I do have questions. . . . articles showing how FOTB controversies involving Eddie Huang and Constance Wu were covered . . . What controversies? While there is one involving Wu (i.e., the renewal tweets), there's no mention of a controversy involving Huang in English at all. Chinese media were following this English-language American TV show and its stars. How uncommon is this? I'm finding that World Journal has documented Game of Thrones and The Epoch Times has an article about Stranger Things.

Upon a closer look, I see four quotes from Huang in the article. That aside, the statement that you wanted to include is apparently also a tweet by Huang. If The Epoch Times claimed he said that to them in an interview, then that contributes to why it is a deprecated source. Nevertheless, since now the quote can be sourced elsewhere (i.e., the tweet), I'm leaning more toward it not being that necessary to include, really. KyleJoan^talk 04:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Synopsis

Currently #1 Series synopsis includes "following their relocation from Chinatown of Washington, DC". Is there any reason that shouldn't be changed to "Washington, DC's Chinatown" (or Washington DC's Chinatown)? Mcljlm (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Constance Wu's reason for tweets

Well it does feel like now is the time we need to update the section about Constance Wu's tweets. That part seems outdated now, Constance later clarified in this interview on The_View_(talk_show), meaning we should change from "Wu was looking at other projects" to the real reason Constance has now revealed, i.e. Wu faced sexual harassment on the show by a producer.

PS: As an Asian myself I am *strongly* in favour of highlighting such abuse in the community so it may be mitigated so would be grateful for the update, but this should not be reason for a decision to change, instead above interview/book by Constance Wu should be. Fwd079 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)