Talk:The Deep (TV serial)

Reception
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.40.220 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Drmargi reverted my edits twice, first falsely accusing me of misquoting, and when I rebutted that allegation, demanding to know why removed a misrepresentative quote, asking me to explain on the dicussion page.

Short version: Firstly, reverting the whole thing when your only problem is with one quote is unhelpful. Secondly, a seemingly positive quote for a negative review is not representative. That is why I removed the existant quote, and why I will be reverting your edit.

Long version: Proior to my edit, the text was originally ''The Herald Scotland explained "the tension dribbles away like water from an outflow", referring to Captain Minnie’s reaction to a dramatic situation. The Independent gave the first episode a positive review saying "the BBC ought to be given its head,...you might even say it has a blockbuster on its hands"''

I feel the meaning of the quote from The Herald is unclear, when taken out of context. I therefore put in the fuller text "the tension dribbles away like water from an outflow and it all ends up feeling just a little bit silly." which makes it clear that the quoted line is criticism rather than praise.

The description and text of the second quote, from the The Independent, is actively (and therefore I presume maliciously) misleading. It describes the review as positive, but a cursory glance at the full text of the review reveals it to be scorn-ridden and difficult to misconstrue. Phrases like "standard Hollywood boilerplate" (describing the plot) lambast The Deep, and the quote given in the Wikipedia article "the BBC ought to be given its head,...you might even say it has a blockbuster on its hands" is assembled from two distinct sentences and is therefore a misquote. The first half, "the BBC ought to be given its head," is and the second half is merly referring to the relatively all-star cast. I therefore replaced it with the last words of the review, when their air runs out, the crew can switch to their supply of pure camp. which I felt represented the flavour of the review much more accurately.

I hope that explains my reasoning, and why I putting it back, this time while logged in. RayBarker (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of having a tantrum, why not just remember to use an edit summary next time? As it stood, it appeared you were making an WP:NPOV decision to slant the review more negatively than it was actually written.  Given that, my revert, in toto, was justified, particularly coming from an IP editor with no edit sumary.  Drmargi (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the section, the more trouble I have with it. The reviews and quotes have been selected so as to favor somewhat sarcastic quotes, as well as omitting many major media with more favorable opinions of the program in favor of the negative.  There is a clear failure of WP:NPOV in the selection of reviews and quotes.  Moreover, there is no attention to ratings, which have been quite high.  Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the some of them were from odd sources (and in one case quite a sarcastic and shallow) and am fine with removing the whole section, particularly as the show is only 2/5 of the way through. Might be worth revisiting when the show has aired it's last episode... Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to be clear. You're making false claims about me again by the way, I provided edit summaries for everything I did. I originally planned just to correct the vandalism edit "but what does the press know after all?" but that caused me to notice the bizarre style of the section and check the attribution... Realised you were probably prejudging them as anonymous edits, hence logging in.  RayBarker (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Ray - I overlooked this. I'd have sworn you did a couple edits w/o summaries,  but coals to Newcastle now.  I don't think you were ranting particularly, unless you mean your initial post.  It's all good, and I think you and I see eye-to-eye on the fundamental issue.  My only concern was that you'd seemingly edited so as to alter the impression of the show a reader might form; I recognize that wasn't your intent now.  Drmargi (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by 'odd sources'?. The reception section should stay, It meets the guidelines ofWP:NPOV. Matt-tastic (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You say it passes WP:NPOV with no justification. I disagree.  The reviews cited are selected to focus on the negative aspects of the program, without also describing the more favorable elements.  Many major media are omitted, yet reviews from smaller and online media are included -- why?  Moreover, the evaluation of the reviews was changed from mixed to negative with no discussion, which is NPOV all on its own.  Selection of quotes is equally problematic, and most appear to be selected for their attempts at wit, rather than substance.  In toto, the section appears to be somewhat slanted so as to ridicule the program rather than to paint an accurate, unbiased picture of what the reviewers have said.  It also omits the rather solid ratings entirely.


 * On the other hand, a broad reading of the reviews from the major media alone paints a very different picture. A few reviews are strongly favorable.  Most note, to varying degree, the weakness of Frances as a commander, the gloominess of Clem and the pointless situation with Frances and Samson.  But at the same time, Samson and the mystery man fare better, as do the minor players.  But most importantly, many reviewers note that, despite the show's obvious weaknesses, it's entertaining and watchable.  The reviews remind me a lot of the ones for Strike Back, where the reviewers were surprised at how much they enjoyed the series in spite of its weaknesses.  Until, and unless, the section accurately represents the reviews, and include some mention of the ratings, there is no possible way it will pass WP:NPOV.  Drmargi (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Matt-tastic, by "odd sources" I mean (for example) The Herald, Glasgow's local paper and IndieLondon, a review website so minor neither I nor Wikipedia have heard of it. I agree with Drmargi that the reception section was seriously imbalanced and needs more work than I'm willing to put in. Feel free to improve it...  RayBarker (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to improve it, however it is difficult to find reviews of the series, which would explain why the section was imbalanced. Matt-tastic (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)