User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archives/2

TWoP
That Nikki and Paulo link to TWoP probably needs to be fixed. In regards to it. I find issue with citing TWoP in that regard (they quote them as saying Paulo was "walking collateral damage", when I guarantee it wasn't an actual characterization of the character, but more of a mocking comment in passing as they recapped the episode. Ther e is serious problems with trying to cite professional opinions when they're mocking what they are reviewing, and you cannot guarantee that they are being serious in their comments. As for the Lost episode (notice how both of those came from the same show's pages), it says, "Television Without Pity gave the third season finale an "A".". Sorry, that is completely unacceptable. That provides no context whatsoever about the episode. Ok, they gave it an "A", but why did they give it an "A"? What exactly was so special about the episode that it warranted an "A"? From what I can tell in the 24 pages recaping "Through the Looking Glass", LuluBates (yes, that's the recaper's name), doesn't actually review the episode. They merely recap everything that happens and then give it a grade based on some random opinion (with no actual reasoning behind the grade).

You criticize me for saying using the "other stuff exists" (or doesn't exist for that matter), but you do the same thing trying to show that it appears in some FA articles. Looking at the Lost episode, it proves my point that these unprofessional "reviews" (or in TWoP's case, "recaps") are being used to fluff up the reception section (something "Through the Looking Glass" doesn't need anyway, because it clearly received significant coverage from reliable, professional sources). It's a completely unncesssary line, with no context, from a source that is not respectable in the least. Do you really believe that TWoP is a valid review site, looking at those "recaps"?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, are you reading these things? I'm sorry to sound like I have an attitude, but that DVD Verdict page isn't true "reviews" either. He recaps the plot and then gives it a grade. Please explain where the review is in this: ""Jitters": Candyman's Tony Todd guest stars as Earl, a former LutherCorp employee who's been FOTW'ed by a mysterious green mist that makes him shake like he's had about 1,000 cups of coffee. After literally rattling a man to death, Earl heads to Smallville to expose LutherCorp's dirty secret—that it's the company that developed the "Acme Earthquake Pills" Wile E. Coyote used in that one Road Runner cartoon. Grade: B+" I have no idea how this got a "B+" rating, because he doesn't talk about what is good about the episode, or what is bad. It's all fluff. People are seeing these things and going "wait, we can use that to prove notability". No, you can't because it isn't a review, it's a recap with a grade that has not reasoning behind it. What DVD Verdict did accomplish was a true review of the entire season (which is below all that episode recapping).


 * You're assuming that I haven't seen these webpages before. I deliberately did not use them because they were crap and should not be used. A grade without context is useless. Trust me, I have dug, and I have had WikiFriends help search for reviews for these articles. They don't exist. Sorry, but TWoP and DVD Verdict are not providing "reviews". Given the unprofessionalism of the site (TWoP), the lack of context in the grading, it was easy for me to say that they should not be used in articles. It's the same reason I don't like TVSquad, and grill their inclusion in FACs whenever I see them. For some reason, editors have taken to going through those "reviews" and pulling these little statements out and pretending like the "review" was really all about that. If you're going to be pulling reception information you should be paraphrasing their opinion, not pulling a word here and there and trying to make it appear like that was their opinion (that's called original research). This is a review. Notice how he spends the time analyzing the episode, and explaining what works and what doesn't. He doesn't recap the episode, providing mocking commentary, and then give it a grade of "A". So, like I said, I have searched and there is nothing out there. Now, you can take my "nothing" in a technical manner and say "hey, this is a 'review'". I'll explain to you why it isn't a real "review" of an episode, hence why I did not use it, and why I stick the statement that there is nothing out there. I'm sure they are plenty of fans out there that review TV shows, but I certainly wouldn't consider them in my statement of "there are no reviews out there", as I assume that someone reading it would realize that when I say such a thing it is in response to "professional reviews that CAN and SHOULD be cited in an article".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I never included Nielsen Ratings in the season 1 article (or the other seasons - with exception to season 7) is because I could never find ratings for every episode. Another problem is identifying what they are rating in those links. It says Smallville's "first three weeks", but it has the first one at 6.2. If that is supposed to be 6.2 million overall viewers, then it's wrong. We already know that Smallville's pilot brought in 8.4 million. I don't know what "6.2" actually stands for. Even if we did, it seems odd to have 5-6 ratings (the 4 you found, plus the pilot and the finale...if the first one you found is really episodes 2-4, instead of 1-3), and then 15-16 blank fields. I would personally love to have the Nielsen Ratings for every episode.


 * As for the DVD, I assume you mean DVD Verdict's review of the season at the end? I'm actually incorporating that right now, I've just got side-tracked with other discussions. How's this for the DVD release?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What we need are "viewers". The average reader doesn't know how to read Nielsen Ratings. They'd see "5.2/9" and go, "what the hell does that mean?" Something like this shows us the actual estimate for viewership. The problem is going back far enough to get the other ratings.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I started it, but I'll need your assistance because when I look for that information all I get are the overall ratings for the network, and nothing on the individual shows.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Only what is directly verified. If you look at the link I provided above ("Something like this shows..."), and do the math you provided, then the viewership with household figures at 3.1/5 should be 4.185. The actual viewership was calculated as 5.01 for the premiere of the seventh season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think rst20xx wants you to voice your current opinion on the featured topic debate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The O.C. Task Force parameter template thing
No problem, happy to help. Not sure why I thought The O.C. would be a "Mid" importance article, all things considered, but I'm glad the template works. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing by country
Hi RR. Yeah, I like that idea. Do you fancy rolling it out on an example and see how it goes? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

List of UEFA Super Cup winners
Sorry for rushing and removing some of your edits, I think it would be better to work together. You have a point on all of the stuff I removed actually. For the single finals in the two-legged period I think we could move the finals to the single match table and add a note explaining why there was no second leg, and as for distinguishing the Champions League winners and UEFA Cup/Cup winners Cup winners I think using a colour to highlight this would be enough, what do you think? NapHit (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One way around it is too add a marker like we have done for the extra time finals, that way it would comply with WP:Colours as colour blind users would be able to see the marker. That is not used for the List of Super Bowl champions, which just has colours and that is a featured list. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question the one thing that struck me was that it looked a little weird, and your right it can't go in the single match finals due to chronology, I would just leave it as it is, that's how it is in the table in the UEFA Super Cup article, if people question it at a peer review or featured list cndidate we can just change it then. NapHit (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh the markers you've used for notes can be used if the notes are moved into the Notes column, I'll do it once I've completed the most successful teams table. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh that's probably the best idea, shame I didn't read your message before I had done the first table oh well, it can be fixed later NapHit (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take it to PR first, as I'm not sure whether it would pass FLC straight away without a PR due to the list being slightly different to the other lists, I'll stick it up now NapHit (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've addressed your comments at the FLC, any chance you could take another look when you have time, Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Bryan Adams awards

 * Fixed the problems with the List of Bryan Adams awards.

OC Season 3
Peer review ✅. Sorry it's so long, I tend to be microscopic sometimes! Don't worry, they're just little things, overall it's pretty good. Drop me a note when you're done, and I'll take a second look. Regards Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied to your two questions. I'm happy with the ones you decided not to do based on your replies. Overall it's an excellent piece of writing. Well done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)