Jump to content

Talk:The Book of Henry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Book of Henry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

Add more to it, the full thing Laceygirl101 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need you guys help Mrsyabeismycherrypie (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mrsyabeismycherrypie, why do you keep trying to delete the plot summary? Please explain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: Audience scores

[edit]

Please stop edit waring over this. If you would like to discuss the audience scores, please do so here on this Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in the past user polls are often not including and/or removed (such as IMDB, Metacritic and in this case Rotten Tomatoes) for being being self-published and not reliable, because we cannot confirm whether people making a genuine attempt to review a film, whether they have even watched it and whether people are submitting multiple reviews as different people. Usually when users are mentioned in a Wiki article, it has been referenced by a reliable source (for example a reputable article discussing a disconnect between critics and audiences that references it). Also what would make Rotten Tomato users more reliable than let's say IMDB, which currently has a different, more negative reception? EDIT: WP:UGC has more on this. Frankly Man (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores, as does this one. Would you prefer to cite either article? There are more than 3,000 audience reviews; even if a couple are fake that is a large sample of audience reviewers. This article calls the film "a movie that critics hate and audiences love." I think it's noteworthy that audience reaction is nearly 50% higher than critical reaction. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite agree with the assessment that the volume of reviews makes them any more reliable. As for the sources however, YES you have got some good reliable examples there that can be used. I would try and work them into the article though rather than use them to just cite the typical "it has X score on RT etc". It might also be good to include the director's response as well, since they're also in those sources. EDIT: Those sources would be preferable to just RT's user page cited. Frankly Man (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be preferable to include references both to the RT audience score and to reviews that include a mention of the audience response. It seems clear that audiences have reacted differently than most of the critics who've published reviews, and it's important to include this information in order to fairly represent the response to the film. Somambulant1 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing this on WP:UGC, hence why we need the reliable sources Ssilvers has given to be the priority sources first. EDIT: Do we have any sources beyond the mention of RT? We can still use the former but I ask for the sake of variety and weight. Frankly Man (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audience scores should not be included per MOS:FILM#Audience response. Such scores are not reliable since they are subject to demographic skew and vote-stacking. It's essentially poisonous fruit. CinemaScore grades are appropriate to use instead, but for some reason, I can't find a grade for this film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Audience response does say that we shouldn't cite RT for audience response, but there are several other sources that note the critical/audience reaction gap. I've added a couple of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more, for the sake of notability and weight? Frankly Man (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the correct standard. Article subjects need to be notable. Information in articles should be "noteworthy". Also, per WP:WEIGHT, adding more refs would be undue weighting (I did mention another one above). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, apologies. I'm referring to beyond the 2 sources you have provided are there other, potentially more notable links instead that cover the same topic? Because if so that would give even better notability to any mention of audience feedback. Frankly Man (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the standard is NOT notability, but rather noteworthiness. I disagree that adding more sources would be helpful.-- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again that's not at all what I meant but clearly I'm not conveying it particularly well at this moment so nevermind. I was just trying to make a suggestion for something potentially better than what we currently have, although I can see the recent edits are fine nonetheless. Good stuff! Frankly Man (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Book_of_Henry&oldid=1200259385"