This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warrior Nun (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did the devil perform an act of kindness which enable his capture and imprisonment under the vatican? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.248.120 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @
TommyR25: as the one that replaced it.
A file used in this article,
File:Warrior nun.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the
discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -
2pou (
talk)
08:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I get that someone is quoting the text of the episode titles, but I am not seeing the reliably-sourced importance of such. Someone explain? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Someone changed the article to say the series received mixed reviews. This is not an objective neutral interpretation of the available sources. The series received positive reviews. Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews" and Rotten Tomatoes gave it a score of 70%.
The choice of reviews also seemed a little strange, The Hollywood Reporter is a very reliable source for film and television, but BlackGirlNerds and critic Steve Murray of ArtsATL are unusual choices (they are not notable critics). These three reviews were all considered negative by Rotten Tomatoes. [3] This selection does not show a Neutral Point of View, and puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on the negative when the series received positive reviews. The Reception section should be expanded with some positive reviews to give a more neutral and balanced overview. (I will probably come back another day and do it, but if anyone else is interested please go ahead.) -- 109.77.193.6 ( talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the opinions, I would have gone looking for
3rd opinions eventually, only coming back around to this now.
I understand that some editors prefer to quote Metacritic directly and say "generally favorable". I also understand that some editors feel there is a real difference between saying reviews were positive or reviews were generally positive, and they feel that extra "generally" qualification is necessary (I don't agree it is necessary but I understand it).
I can image a case where the Rotten Tomatoes score and Metacritic scores are quite different from each other and a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might be needed to summarize the reviews but I don't think this is one of those cases. The sources, and I was referring to, namely the two major review aggregators, are both indicating that the reviews were positive overall. What I think Jack was trying to say is that the individual sources, the reviews themselves, are only cautiously (mixed) positive not enthusiastically positive. If I'm finally understanding his point (and I might not be) I still think we need avoid making our own interpretations and go with what Metacritic says, because we can't be having these same discussions over and over again if we are to have any consistency across Wikipedia film and TV articles.
I do think the article could do with a better mix of reviews, and since no one raised any objections to the reviews I suggested earlier I've added them to the article. --
109.79.180.114 (
talk)
23:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warrior Nun (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did the devil perform an act of kindness which enable his capture and imprisonment under the vatican? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.248.120 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @
TommyR25: as the one that replaced it.
A file used in this article,
File:Warrior nun.jpg, has been listed at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the
discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -
2pou (
talk)
08:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I get that someone is quoting the text of the episode titles, but I am not seeing the reliably-sourced importance of such. Someone explain? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Someone changed the article to say the series received mixed reviews. This is not an objective neutral interpretation of the available sources. The series received positive reviews. Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews" and Rotten Tomatoes gave it a score of 70%.
The choice of reviews also seemed a little strange, The Hollywood Reporter is a very reliable source for film and television, but BlackGirlNerds and critic Steve Murray of ArtsATL are unusual choices (they are not notable critics). These three reviews were all considered negative by Rotten Tomatoes. [3] This selection does not show a Neutral Point of View, and puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on the negative when the series received positive reviews. The Reception section should be expanded with some positive reviews to give a more neutral and balanced overview. (I will probably come back another day and do it, but if anyone else is interested please go ahead.) -- 109.77.193.6 ( talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the opinions, I would have gone looking for
3rd opinions eventually, only coming back around to this now.
I understand that some editors prefer to quote Metacritic directly and say "generally favorable". I also understand that some editors feel there is a real difference between saying reviews were positive or reviews were generally positive, and they feel that extra "generally" qualification is necessary (I don't agree it is necessary but I understand it).
I can image a case where the Rotten Tomatoes score and Metacritic scores are quite different from each other and a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might be needed to summarize the reviews but I don't think this is one of those cases. The sources, and I was referring to, namely the two major review aggregators, are both indicating that the reviews were positive overall. What I think Jack was trying to say is that the individual sources, the reviews themselves, are only cautiously (mixed) positive not enthusiastically positive. If I'm finally understanding his point (and I might not be) I still think we need avoid making our own interpretations and go with what Metacritic says, because we can't be having these same discussions over and over again if we are to have any consistency across Wikipedia film and TV articles.
I do think the article could do with a better mix of reviews, and since no one raised any objections to the reviews I suggested earlier I've added them to the article. --
109.79.180.114 (
talk)
23:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)