Talk:Warrior Nun (TV series)

Angel or Devil?
Did the devil perform an act of kindness which enable his capture and imprisonment under the vatican? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.248.120 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Warrior nun.jpg listed for discussion
Courtesy ping as the one that replaced it. A file used in this article, File:Warrior nun.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -2pou (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

what's with the biblical text?
I get that someone is quoting the text of the episode titles, but I am not seeing the reliably-sourced importance of such. Someone explain? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was me :)
 * The quotes are relevant to the episodes because they foreshadow the events of the episode, it's a kind of teaser, from a marketing perspective, (Like the morse code  at the beginning of the episodes  of Jericho) It's relevant  both from a plot and presentation perspective.
 * The quotes  have been deleted, but I'd like to restore them. Is there a prereq  for me doing so?Riventree (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So, howdy,, and thanks for engaging with me. To answer the unspoken 'why' of your question about the removals, the question (imo) turns on whether you have a Reliable Source that explicitly notes these bible passages as being intrinsic to an understanding of the episode as either foreshadowing or guidance, or whether you figured this out on your own.
 * If the former, you have to reference where someone else made that deduction. If you figured this out by yourself, we cannot use it; editors are not citable, nor is their Sherlocking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your intuition was correct; I had noticed it myself. Luckily though it was pretty obvious (the quotes are kind of on-the-nose) and this has been noted by Reliable Sources such as Newsweek. . Decider and Screenrant also have similar articles
 * Think we can roll them back in without offending anyone?
 * Riventree (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Riventree (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Wow, excellent research, bub! I think that there is cause to note the work that the writers put into finding verses to encapsulate Ava's journey as the episodes go, but probably not in the episode section. I think you might want to create a subsection within development, and uses the sources to note how each psalm and Biblical line has meaning within the episode. I am not convinced that the whole 'poem' (so to speak) needs to be used, but but noting that sources see how tey relate to the plot points of the episode. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm embarrassed to admit I've already put more effort into the quotes, editing the table (always a pain in WP) and defending my point than the whole show is worth. :) Perhaps if there's a second season...
 * Riventree (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I want point out that Newsweek post-2013 is a questionable source per WP:RSP because it is owned by International Business Times, an unreliable source. Pre-2013, it was generally reliable. — Young Forever (talk)   01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Positive reviews
Someone changed the article to say the series received mixed reviews. This is not an objective neutral interpretation of the available sources. The series received positive reviews. Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews" and Rotten Tomatoes gave it a score of 70%.

The choice of reviews also seemed a little strange, The Hollywood Reporter is a very reliable source for film and television, but BlackGirlNerds and critic Steve Murray of ArtsATL are unusual choices (they are not notable critics). These three reviews were all considered negative by Rotten Tomatoes. This selection does not show a Neutral Point of View, and puts WP:UNDUE emphasis on the negative when the series received positive reviews. The Reception section should be expanded with some positive reviews to give a more neutral and balanced overview. (I will probably come back another day and do it, but if anyone else is interested please go ahead.) -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I'm the one who changed it. 70% is not generally favorable, but clearly our definitions of "generally positive" seem pretty far apart. All of the reviews I used - from AstATL and BlackGirlNerds are among the critic reviews featured in Rotten Tomatoes. They are considered valid and pass our criteria a RS, so seeking to discount them because of that is going to fall particularly flat with me.
 * I submit that, instead of offering a puff piece on a series that garnered a pretty side selection of very, very negative views from critics as opposed to those who gave it a lukewarm thumbs up is pretty fair.
 * Of course I am willing to discuss finding a consensus view, if you feel its a bit unbalanced.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say mixed. That is not a neutral point of view. To say otherwise fails WP:NPOV. Please revert your change to the article summary.
 * You have to ignore Metacritic to say the reviews were mixed and how high does a Rotten Tomatoes score need to be before you call it positive? (Rotten Tomatoes is a crude tool but they call everything above 60% "fresh", which is their synonym for positive.) Metacritic says "generally positive" and the summary reflected the source by saying the reviews were positive. On the scale of grades that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes use to grade television shows this show gets a positive grade (not a top grade, just positive). Stricter grading systems exist for other things (more important things like the safety standard required by driving tests as previously mentioned), but for a article about a silly television show we should use what the sources say.
 * Even if you only think the series received "mixed" reviews it is a strange coincidence to chose only 3 negative reviews, 2 from obscure sources. They meet the minimum acceptable standard but it is still strange to pick those obscure reviewers over CNN or the Sydney Morning Herald. If you want negative reviews there are better sources available. That is beside the point though, the point is that more more reviews should be added. I understand that sometimes negative reviews can be more incisive and insightful but even if you think the reviews were mixed, then there should be a mix of reviews not all negative reviews.
 * I would probably add The AV Club review, and I would normally add Variety but they don't seem to have reviewed this show. I might use the review from ComicBook.com but only because this show was based on a comic (and because they rightly point out this show isn't for everyone). -- 109.77.195.214 (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Chiming in here where I wasn't invited, but +70% IS well into the "generally positive" range. Anything over 50% is "positive". Mixed reviews is not an accurate summary of the information we see on the aggregators. I think we should restore the original text.
 * Riventree (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 60-75% range is "generally positive". According to Metacritic, directly from the website About Metascores, 40-60 range is considered to be "mixed or average reviews" and 61-80 is considered to be "generally favorable reviews". — Young Forever (talk)   02:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I am going to address something that User:109anon said:




 * The sources say the series is 'okay' and a number of sources say that the show is (and I'm paraphrasing here) is trying so very, very hard to be Buffy for the Bible. When I first saw the article, someone had only added positive reviews, and so I looked into the breadth of reviews, and it wasn't anywhere near a love affair. The sources do not have to say they are mixed; that's an overview term we use when the reviews aren't overwhelmingly positive or a dumpster fire - mixed. That's not NPOV, and I am a little concerned that you think it is, 109anon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the original wording. 70% is generally positive/favorable. "Generally positive" doesn't mean they're all positive - it means there are a good number of negatives but in general, most are positive. Mixed is used for scores around 50%, not to mean you have positives and negatives. Otherwise, almost every movie/show would be mixed. Calling this "mixed" would imply that it's in the same bucket as shows getting 40s, which is misleading. Both the leading review aggregators - Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic - consider 70% to be good/positive/fresh. So, we should stick to that. — Starforce13  20:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mixed" means there is a mix of positive and negative reviews. "Average" means the reviews were neither positive or negative. Determining reviews to be "average" is extremely hard which is why most of the aggregates do NOT use that language but instead stay with "mixed". So we stick we with MC says and do not try to guess otherwise, unless there are sources that give us reason to talk about the differences (such as if user reviews were far different, or if the aggregators fail to capture issues, as the case with The Last of Us Part II). --M asem (t) 01:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mixed or average" is misleading. — Young Forever (talk)   22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the opinions, I would have gone looking for 3rd opinions eventually, only coming back around to this now.

I understand that some editors prefer to quote Metacritic directly and say "generally favorable". I also understand that some editors feel there is a real difference between saying reviews were positive or reviews were generally positive, and they feel that extra "generally" qualification is necessary (I don't agree it is necessary but I understand it). I can image a case where the Rotten Tomatoes score and Metacritic scores are quite different from each other and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might be needed to summarize the reviews but I don't think this is one of those cases. The sources, and I was referring to, namely the two major review aggregators, are both indicating that the reviews were positive overall. What I think Jack was trying to say is that the individual sources, the reviews themselves, are only cautiously (mixed) positive not enthusiastically positive. If I'm finally understanding his point (and I might not be) I still think we need avoid making our own interpretations and go with what Metacritic says, because we can't be having these same discussions over and over again if we are to have any consistency across Wikipedia film and TV articles.

I do think the article could do with a better mix of reviews, and since no one raised any objections to the reviews I suggested earlier I've added them to the article. -- 109.79.180.114 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)