User talk:Clinton201

Summarizing critical response
Hi, I've noticed that you've submitted good faith summaries of critical response for movies, for example here. This is an issue that has come up numerous times at WikiProject Film. Though the convention exists in a number of film and television articles, it is not our job to summarize critical response. In many cases, people cherrypick good or bad reviews, then draw a conclusion about all critical response based on those reviews. That is synthesis and is prone to abuse. In other cases, people attempt to summarize what Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic says. Consensus prefers that we avoid statements like "Critical response was generally positive" and instead present the data like this:
 * The film currently holds a 30% "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 77 reviews. The site summarized the critical consensus as, "Bland, unoriginal, and lacking the wit of the TV series, Hey Arnold is a 30-minute cartoon stretched beyond its running time."[1] Metacritic recorded a score of 47/100 based on 23 reviews, indicating "Mixed or average reviews".[2]

In this example it is clear that the determinations came from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. You may also notice that the two sites are not in agreement, with RT calling the film "rotten", and Metacritic calling it "average". Also, phrases like "mixed to negative" are meaningless and should not be included. Hope that helps you to understand how the community prefers the content to be delivered. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)