Talk:Death to 2020

Couple more reviews
Along with those I've just added there's IndieWire, which accords with the other reviews' consensus, and Chortle, a slightly more marginal publication with a bit of a warmer review (3.5/5 stars). — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes
Hi, I'm responding to this edit summary. I'd encourage you to do a bit more due diligence in future, or start discussion first, because you say "You clearly did not read the Independent source" quite confidently but a simple look through the edit history would show that I introduced this source. I happened to read it twice in its entirety, first on a hunt for reviews and secondly to see if its aggregation of criticism was the same as what I gathered in the article. I added the citation and comment about negative reception first, and later added the clause "with reviewers criticising the jokes as obvious while praising some of the cast" after introducing more reviews, as the lead should be a summary of the body and the jokes are described as "obvious" or synonyms ("predictable", "hacky bit of recycled ..."/"lazy") in Telegraph, A.V. Club and Hollywood Reporter, as quoted. It was a mistake of mine to leave this with a misleading inline citation, so thank you for highlighting this, but I of course did not realise the mistake when you first made the removal because your edit summary was simply "+".

The image of Grant is redundant to the above image of Grant, but my main issue was that it's undue weight to highlight him above e.g. Milioti, who received similar or more praise in the reviews quoted (which I of course read in full when adding to the article). Of course Independent will summarise things a little differently in that they consider the Metro source, unreliable for Wikipedia, and don't cover A.V. Club.

As for Metacritic, there was consensus somewhere that review aggregators are only appropriate to cite when there are at least 20 reviews aggregated (otherwise there is not enough data—like how a scientific experiment can't pass a p-value test until there's enough data for the margin of error to be small). I can dig up the precise consensus I'm alluding to if you insist, but it will take me a while (I struggle to find it every time someone asks)—it originates from List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, though, where longstanding consensus after large amounts of discussion lead to the text Only films with a critics' consensus (staff-written summary) or at least 20 reviews are included. because any less than 20 reviews is seen as an insufficient number for deductions to be made.

MOS:DUPLINK is of course the guideline on which I unlinked Screenwipe and Black Mirror but perhaps you didn't notice this as you don't mention it in your edit summary. I changed the wording "compared it unfavourably" because this sounds like it is saying "reviewers said that it had the same flaws as X" whereas they actually said "reviewers said that it was worse than X". — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There were WP:SYNTH and accurate paraphrasing problems. There aren't any other significant praise reported other than Grant (the characters rather than the performances are actually praised in the reviews in the reception section, and they are not enough to make any generalizations.), and the cast images are redundant, so I removed them. The image in the reception section is there for critical commentary. There was never a discussion of "at least 20 reviews", it seems like you mistook it entirely. The RT's 100% list was decided to include at least 20 reviews because the list was originally way too long, and because RT uses at least 20 reviews for "certified fresh" status. nyxærös  08:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No Nyxaros, I'm afraid you're not correct. It is not WP:SYNTH to summarise common attributes of reviews. See my work at the leads of FA San Junipero or GAs including The National Anthem (Black Mirror), Fifteen Million Merits, The Entire History of You etc. for some Brooker-and-Jones-related examples. What are the cast images "redundant" to? Articles are meant to standalone for a large number of reasons and some of those images are different to what you'd find if you clicked through on the cast's links anyway. It is odd that you would say There was never a discussion in reply to my comment if you had read it in full, in which I said that there was a discussion which I could find with further research. Most users assume good faith but I see that you are not doing so. I've not found the particular discussion I'm thinking of but I have found some relevant passages:
 * Review aggregators: However, if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate. (An independent film and the aggregator RT are only examples, of course, as the context of this passage makes clear.)
 * Talk:Hellraiser:_Judgment, where the 20 review threshold at RT100% is seen as sufficient precedent.
 * Featured_article_candidates/San_Junipero/archive2, where one reviewer gives concerns that 18 is not sufficient and we agree that 20 is a good threshold.
 * Whether 20 or 40 or 10 should be the limit, just four reviews is ridiculous to cite Metacritic for—no-one would seriously suggest that this is a statistically accurate piece of information with low margin of error.
 * As to the last two points you've not addressed, I notice that it's actually Weekly Wipe rather than Screenwipe that is linked in Production so that link can stay, but Black Mirror must be unlinked. "compared it unfavourably" is not just a poor choice of words but actually close paraphrasing from The Indepdendent which must be reworded. I hope you'll correct these errors. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)