User talk:90.204.164.47

ZSJL edits
Hey there! I noticed your edits regarding the Critical Reception section for ZSJL. I do not wish to start an edit conflict, so I would love to resolve the matter here. I think you know that it revolves around the Little White Lies, Observer.com, and BBC critic reviews. I just to clarify that I am not biased and would love to keep them in the article, but frankly, I also see that it contradicts MOS:FILM in certain ways. The MOS encourages reviews from the countries of origins of them film, and since LWL is a British magazine, I think it would discourage it. The MOS also encourages print reviews over spoken reviews, hence why I think the MOS also discourages the BBC one. The MOS also encourages a source from a reputable area, and I'm not sure how reputable Observer.com is. However, I think you do have a valid point in that the reviews have been in the article for some time without being challenged. Hence, for now, I kept all the reviews. My intention for the article is to turn it into a good article, and the last assessment said reception needed a lot of work, hence my edits there. However, another requirement for the GA is also to make sure the page is stable, and I would love for us to be able to collaborate and fix the Reception section here, and maybe even help promote the entire article to GA status. Again, please don't misread my intentions here, I want to prevent any further conflicts from happening, and would love to resolve the matter in a peaceful way since we both have a shared interest in improving the article. Thank you, and have a nice day! :)

PS: As per the MOS, we also need to make sure that the extra reviews added also highlight the commentary of the reviews and is not just a quotefarm. Make sure we paraphase important points of the review and also include some quotes to properly represent the review. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)