Talk:List of British films of 2011

Critical reception
The critical reception section of this article is a disaster. It doesn't include inline sources for starters. Secondly it was trying to use unreliable sources such as IMDB scores, but user generated content such as web poll are notoriously unreliable, and not allowed. Thirdly it attempt to take averages of that mix of sources, despite gaps due to films not always having listings at the various sites. I deleted some of it in attempt to tidy it up but on reflection it is dumpster fire and I'm going to need to delete even more of it. -- 109.79.161.229 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm deeply disappointed to see this disaster repeated on several other articles from this series. 2012 2013 2014 (2015 seems to be okay).
 * This would have been sloppy work in Wikipedia 2009, to see such a misguided disaster still in Wikipedia 2019 is disturbing so it didn't seem like a WP:BOLD decision to remove it. -- 109.79.161.229 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, I saw a maintenance tag stating that the article has no reliable references. I read up the policies you used as evidence and now I see why you are right. Maybe I could tag this for speedy deletion. LPS and MLP Fan  (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think deletion is necessary but this is far from a good quality article, and would benefit from active maintenance. For starters, adding inline references for all the relevant figures. Another problem is that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are heavily biased towards American reviewers, and a film might be successful in the UK (regional comedies for example) but not work for American reviewers. Careful explanatory prose could help offset any undue weight.
 * There are many other flawed list articles, but the use of IMDB audience scores particularly drew my attention to this one, because no one should take user voted web polls seriously. Some editors have decided to include strange "totals" or "averages" merely because they can, rather than because of anything insightful to say to readers. Even the table layout of this article could be done in various different ways, for example putting both RT and MC in a single table might provide a more useful overview.
 * So while I think this article is pretty bad I don't think it is should be deleted. -- 109.78.242.139 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)