Talk:House of Cards season 3

Titles of episodes 11-13

Why hasn't this been changed to Chapters 37-39 respectively? It's on imdb and multiple other sources but the page is protected for some reason. Feudonym (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 February 2015

Updating episode list. Adding in the final 3 episodes. Niclake13 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add remaining episode titles, that have now been released; removed citations in episode table for upcoming episodes and dates, which have occurred. LLArrow (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fictional motorcade

The motorcade which was filmed, causing traffic disruption, was real not fictional!Royalcourtier (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Cards (season 3). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008162612/http://dcist.com/2014/10/it_looks_like_house_of_cards_is_fil.php to http://dcist.com/2014/10/it_looks_like_house_of_cards_is_fil.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:House of Cards (season 3)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This article, as nominated, does not meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria#3 on breadth. For a major, widely reviewed series, the article neither cites nor summarizes the wide critical response it had. For having previously nominated House of Cards (season 2), I know you're familiar with the sources in its Critical reception section, many of whom returned with reviews for the next season. The baseline for television season articles have only increased since that nomination 10 years ago, so their absence here is a glaring omission. These critical reviews contain both analysis of the show and other details, both of which are needed for basic breadth, such as NYT, EW. I'm quite surprised to see this nominated without those addressed. Entertainment Weekly also has numerous articles on the development of season three. Hollywood Reporter has articles on individual episodes. There's also more that can be said about nearly every section of the article, such as that it was a top contender (by nomination count) in the SAG awards. Since it would take a rewrite to address this content gap (including an expansion of the lede, which does not adequately summarize the article's content) and thus is a long way from satisifying the breadth criteron, I am marking the article as a quickfail. czar 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.