![]() | A fact from Death to 2020 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 January 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Along with those I've just added there's IndieWire, which accords with the other reviews' consensus, and Chortle, a slightly more marginal publication with a bit of a warmer review (3.5/5 stars). — Bilorv ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Bilorv ( talk) and Masem ( talk) et al. Nominated by Bilorv ( talk) at 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC).
Hi Nyxaros, I'm responding to this edit summary. I'd encourage you to do a bit more due diligence in future, or start discussion first, because you say "You clearly did not read the Independent source" quite confidently but a simple look through the edit history would show that I introduced this source. I happened to read it twice in its entirety, first on a hunt for reviews and secondly to see if its aggregation of criticism was the same as what I gathered in the article. I added the citation and comment about negative reception first, and later added the clause "with reviewers criticising the jokes as obvious while praising some of the cast" after introducing more reviews, as the lead should be a summary of the body and the jokes are described as "obvious" or synonyms ("predictable", "hacky bit of recycled ..."/"lazy") in Telegraph, A.V. Club and Hollywood Reporter, as quoted. It was a mistake of mine to leave this with a misleading inline citation, so thank you for highlighting this, but I of course did not realise the mistake when you first made the removal because your edit summary was simply "+".
The image of Grant is redundant to the above image of Grant, but my main issue was that it's undue weight to highlight him above e.g. Milioti, who received similar or more praise in the reviews quoted (which I of course read in full when adding to the article). Of course Independent will summarise things a little differently in that they consider the Metro source, unreliable for Wikipedia, and don't cover A.V. Club.
As for Metacritic, there was consensus somewhere that review aggregators are only appropriate to cite when there are at least 20 reviews aggregated (otherwise there is not enough data—like how a scientific experiment can't pass a
p-value test until there's enough data for the margin of error to be small). I can dig up the precise consensus I'm alluding to if you insist, but it will take me a while (I struggle to find it every time someone asks)—it originates from
List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, though, where longstanding consensus after large amounts of discussion lead to the text Only films with a critics' consensus (staff-written summary) or at least 20 reviews are included.
because any less than 20 reviews is seen as an insufficient number for deductions to be made.
MOS:DUPLINK is of course the guideline on which I unlinked Screenwipe and Black Mirror but perhaps you didn't notice this as you don't mention it in your edit summary. I changed the wording "compared it unfavourably" because this sounds like it is saying "reviewers said that it had the same flaws as X" whereas they actually said "reviewers said that it was worse than X". — Bilorv ( talk) 00:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There was never a discussionin reply to my comment if you had read it in full, in which I said that there was a discussion which I could find with further research. Most users assume good faith but I see that you are not doing so. I've not found the particular discussion I'm thinking of but I have found some relevant passages:
However, if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate.(An independent film and the aggregator RT are only examples, of course, as the context of this passage makes clear.)