Talk:He's All That

Generally negative reviews
Rotten Tomatoes score 30% 44 reviews. Metacritic score 35% 21 reviews "generally unfavorable reviews". This was summarized as "generally negative reviews". [Rephrased to "mostly negative reviews" in another version.]

Someone suggested "generally mixed to negative reviews". I do not believe this bold change of wording is an improvement but also wordings very similar to this have been repeatedly discussed and discouraged by Project Film. Example of one such past discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative

I hope editors will restore the previous wording and discuss before changing it again. -- 109.79.165.170 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will restore the original wording. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify I don't have any problem with wording change by Cardei012597 as it says basically the same thing (personally I'd have said "negative" without the qualifier). I was surprised a long established editor would even suggest that mixed-to-negative wording at all, I thought it had been discussed to death so many times already.
 * The aggregator scores are bad, that seems clear enough. Some editors might argue against including any summary at all though. -- 109.79.165.170 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will look out for such changes. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that the discussion you linked to was hardly definitive on the question, and "positive", "mixed" and "negative" doesn't give enough "gradations" in critical opinion. Regardless, the actual reviews that are cited in this article are not "mostly negative", and that is far more important than whatever the review aggregators are claiming (which, let's face it, aren't definitive by any stretch). If "mixed to negative" is opposed, at this point the wording should be changed to "mixed" based on the actual reviews cited in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The reviews, even the positive ones, are either negative or lukewarm, not necessarily a "mixed" response. The wording is good as it is right now. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary should reflect what is in the article, but first and more importantly the article should accurately and realistically reflect the state of the reviews in general.
 * If the Critical response section is placing too much emphasis on the more positive or mixed reviews that is a different problem and reason to expand and rewrite that section. -- 109.79.176.66 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I can tag the section, until more reviews are added. Once more reviews are added, I can remove the tag. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Character is derived from
The cast section includes a lot of "character is derived from" but it is not clear that there are any sources to support this or more importantly that it is noteworthy in the first place. I haven't removed it yet but if it remains unsourced WP:OR I probably will remove it after I've seen the film. (Not in any hurry to do that though.) -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed. Not a good way to do a cast section. -- 109.76.203.218 (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)