Talk:Walls (Kings of Leon album)

Dear Everyone, Recently the subject of the correct application of either the term "mixed" or "positive" concerning this album has surfaced. I will hereby make the case that the album should be classified as "generally positive" as this is founded on more sources than the application of "mixed". So far, having 10 sourced individual review-scores on wikipedia, the album features five reviews giving it 3/5 stars, one giving it 4.5/10, one giving it 2/5 stars, two giving it 4/5 stars and one giving it a B+. The album also features a metascore of 62/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews in terms of the site´s duct.

1. The first argument against the term "mixed" is that reading 3/5 as "mixed" or "average" is not right in terms of definition. The term is equivalent to median in statistics, and in colloquial language, an average is the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of numbers in the list, as wikipedia itself states. On a 5-star review-scale thus an average would be 2,5/5, not 3/5. 3/5 can thus be colloquially and statistically be read as "slightly above average" in terms of definition which counters the term "mixed" in a sense of "average".

2. "Mixed" could denote a discrepancy of some sort between the reviews, p.e. a certain number of reviews in 5-star-range and a certain number in 1-star-range. So far, five reviews were in 3-star range, three in 4-star range, two in 2-star-range. A drastic discrepancy can thus not be noted since half of the reviews feature the same score and the other reviews cancel each other out to about a level of the other revviews. Thus, if all reviews were charged against each other, counting B+ as 4-stars and 4,5 as 2-stars, the equasion would be 3x5 + 3x4 + 2x2= 31. 31 divided by the ten review-items would then equal 3.1 which is clearly above the 2,5-average provided before. Again, "mixed" cannot be applied.

3. Thirdly, metacritic, which serves as an aggregator for reviews and (on wikipedia) is listed above all individual reviews to put a generalized idea of critics´ response to an album into focus, calculates a score of 62/100 for the album based on 23 reviews. This means "generally favorable" in the website´s terms and thus a "positive" reception in colloquial terms. This "generally favorable" is sourced and can thus not be excluded from the reception-process of the album, driving home the point that the album is in fact "positively" reviewed, not "mixed".

Thank you for reading. Autorefiller (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller


 * That's the very definition of "mixed".Kellymoat (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm here because I saw the unfortunate edit-warring report at AN3. Two solutions:
 * Omit the summary. We're not required to summarize critical response, and we certainly shouldn't be using our own opinions to arrive at the summaries, because we are not critical response aggregators. When we cherrypick reviews and then summarize those reviews, we very well could be establishing and confirming our own biases. Or, if reviews already exist in articles, we might be inadvertently confirming someone else's bias by summarizing the reviews they cherrypicked.
 * Go with what the review aggregator says, using language that we find in most film articles, like this phrasing, which I have stolen from Captain America: Civil War:
 * "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 75 out of 100 based on 52 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
 * To Kellymoat's point about "the very definition of 'mixed'", "mixed" is a bizarre way to describe critical response, because it's all "mixed". Even if generally positive, one critic can love the melodies but hate the singing, another critic can love the singing but hate the production... If we relied on "the very definition of 'mixed'", everything would be labeled "mixed". That's perhaps why it's better to put the summaries into the mouths of sources like Metacritic.
 * General note about edit-warring: The "undo" button should not be used as a middle finger to someone with a differing opinion or as a gambit to "win" the argument. We're not here to win arguments, we're here to figure out what's best for each article, which requires discussion. If someone interrupts the status quo with a bold change and then is reverted, it is the bold user's responsibility to open a discussion to seek consensus for their change. However, sometimes other plays are smarter, including taking initiative by opening a discussion and not reverting a bold change, or opening a discussion directly after reverting a bold change. The back-and forth in the edit summaries never works. Keep in mind that nobody's going to die if the article doesn't contain the phrasing you prefer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First things first, thank you, Cyphoidbomb, for helping out in this issue and for giving this constructive advice, I´ll keep it in mind for the future. Secondly, to come back to the topic; I may be a bit personnally pre-positioned in some way concerning the matter, otherwise the whole edit-war with Kellymoat would not have started, but I would like to see the second solution applied.
 * I do like internal consistency and in general, metascores very much seem to be a go-to-source for reception on wikipedia by now (as the Captain America: Civil War example illustrates). After all, this is the reason why I felt the "mixed" was "unjust" in the first place. Furthermore, I would feel like it would certainly diminish the quality of the article if a whole section would be scrapped or cut to such an extent.
 * Thus, as my final question: how is one of the solutions applied "officially" now? Does somebody just edit after this discussion or should another editor be contacted with the plea to edit in accordance to the result?
 * Thank you all for reading. Autorefiller (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If anybody wants to add something, please do so. I will edit the article in accordance with Cyphoidbombs proposed solution two tomorrow then, if everybody is okay with this outcome. Thank you for reading. Autorefiller (talk) 21:57, 02 June 2017 (UTC)

Mixed vs "generally favorable"
Recently, a rather crabby editor changed the sourced "generally favorable" to their opinion, "mixed" with the edit summary, "in what world is a 62 out of 100 considered favorable".

That "world" is MetaCritic. The phrase is a direct quote. That's why it's inside quotation marks. If it was a 98/100, they would say it was "universal acclaim", despite that clear fact the 98/100 is not "universal'. To get around the fact that their assessments are, well, assessments (they are reporting an evaluation, not a measurement with the phrase), we put include it as a direct quote. You are certainly free to disagree with Metacritic. That said, there are two important things you are not free to do.

You cannot reasonably disagree with whether or not MetaCritic says "generally favorable". They clearly do say that. You can disagree with what they said, but not with the fact that they said it.

You cannot add your own opinion, such as "mixed". That is your opinion. You may feel that 63/100 is "mixed". It is clear that someone else might think it is "generally positive". Others might think it is "about average", "lackluster", "not great", "not bad", "OK", "pretty good" or any one of a million other things. It's similar to stepping outside and saying it's "too hot"; anyone is free to agree or disagree. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)