Talk:The Day Will Come When You Won't Be

Please add citations
Sorry. I added stuff as it aired, but I also understand Wikipedia has a policy about stuff not being cited. In a few more hours, there will be a lot of reports, I'd assume.PeterMan844 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers
So much currently wrong with this article. Firstly, the image at the top right and its subtitle are spoilers, and should be changed. Furthermore, spoilers should be removed from the article save for the plot section. Character deaths are referenced right at the beginning of the article, which is not correct, and should also be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.194.175 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, but the lead is a summary of the article and I feel it's reasonable to include mention of such important matters reflecting plot and casting. You can find more information at Spoiler and No disclaimers in articles.  There might be a better choice of image – maybe Rick with the hatchet over Carl's arm? Reidgreg (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the above, and even said exact same on other articles. But a problem I have here is not any spoilers at all, but the header image direct from the show. We can help avoid obvious spoilers, we do not need to have a that exact image. Another shot that could be used is a close up of Rick's face with a subtitle something along the lines of him in horrific disbelief at the brutal murder of someone from their group. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article?
This article looks decent at face value. I wonder if it might be close to meeting GA criteria? Perhaps a "Production" section, and a copy edit? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes statistics
The 7.1 score of rotten tomatoes is from the critics, not the audience. I suggest someone changes that. Episode has 70% positive reviews, 30% negative and of those reviews, the average score is 7.1.. that's how rotten tomatoes works. And btw AlexTheWhovian.. I have not done 3RR. - AffeL (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As always, you come up short on evidence. Give us the evidence . Edit warring involves more than 3RR. Read WP:EW. But just to be precise, look again. Yes, you have "done 3RR". Sundayclose (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me any evidence that it's from the audience, even though you clearly can't vote on that site. You should also read WP:EW, as you have done more than 3RR. - AffeL (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where on this source(http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_walking_dead/s07/e01/) does it say anything about an audience score. It clearly is the average score of the "TOMATOMETER". if you hold the mouse key on the question mark on that page, you see. - AffeL (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read this(http://www.mtv.com/news/1939097/rotten-tomatoes-youre-doing-it-wrong/), under the 'How To Use It part. And you will understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. - AffeL (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RT website says that the audience rating is from "Flixster.com and RottenTomatoes.com users who have rated the movie". Your link above only explains the Tomatometer, not audience ratings. Now again, give us your evidence. Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the MTV link above. It says "The obvious next place to look after the Tomatometer is the average rating, which is located directly beneath the percentage on a movie's main page. This figure is the average critical rating on a ten-point scale, closer to what Metacritic calculates. Here, you can get a better idea of the average review and even see through any anomalies in the Tomatometer." - AffeL (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Help me out here, Am I wrong?? - AffeL (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception Section
Why are there more negative reviews listed than positive ones, not to mention before the positive ones? It has a 70% rating on RT and yet there are 7 negative reviews, all cherry picked from the harshest ones and only 3 positive reviews, only one of which is a top critic. The reception makes it seem like it was the worst episode in the series. I thought it was against Wikipedia's policies to misrepresent views - "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight.
 * Most of the big critics and sites have given the episode negative reviews, if you can find any "good" reviews to add by a "top critic", then go on and add one. - AffeL (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 17 of the 47 reviewers are top critics. Out of those 17, 10 of them gave positive reviews, so no most of them didn't give negative reviews. Besides this isn't only about adding more positive reviews, this is about the overt representation of the negative reviews in the reception, not to mention listing them before the positive reviews. What other article with a 70% rating, has that format? I propose the reception be changed to represent the 70% rating of the episode, with a 7-3 split between positive and negative reviews respectively.