Talk:Aimy in a Cage

Questionable changes
In this edit I reverted changes made by. I don't see a reasonable justification for the removal of the Rotten Tomatoes average, which helps to provide much-needed context for the aggregator's overall review percentage. Context is what helps us to maintain a neutral point of view. There was also no obvious justification for removing the 1/10 review from Starburst. Again, context helps us to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm not taking a stance yet on whether or not Urbancinefile.com.au should even be included. At first glance it looks like any-old-blog to me. We don't typically include blogs as references, because any halfwit on the internet can start a blog and proclaim himself an expert on any given subject. We only care what mainstream sources with established reputations have to say about anything. The Irish Film Critic reference is dicey to me. , if you wish to explain your decisions and argue for why Urbancinefile should be considered, this would be the place to do it. Please don't restore your changes without achieving consensus, though, as that would be disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Urban Cinephile strikes me as a self-published blog, but I'm not entirely sure about Irish Film Critic. That was added by a former admin, so I figured I'd give it the benefit of the doubt that maybe she saw something that I didn't.  I wouldn't miss it as a source if it were removed.  FilmInk is almost certainly a reliable source: this article in The Australian calls it "a beloved magazine" that ran for 20 years before going online-only.  Starburst is a British magazine, and, of all the sources, is probably the most reliable.  I can see absolutely no reason at all for its removal.  Similarly, I can't understand why we wouldn't mention the Rotten Tomatoes average score.  If there's a problem with the RT average rating, it should be brought to RT, not censored here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)