49,076
edits
Forum:Story pages should have reception sections: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Story pages should have reception sections (edit)
Revision as of 00:12, 18 July 2011
, 18 July 2011→No we shouldn't
m (→No we shouldn't: add et al) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:There are enough sites where we, the fans, can toss our opinions on shows, et al, at each other. Please skip the critical reviews. I think you will be opening a swamp full of quick sand, even limiting it to 'official' reviews. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 04:15, July 17, 2011 (UTC) | :There are enough sites where we, the fans, can toss our opinions on shows, et al, at each other. Please skip the critical reviews. I think you will be opening a swamp full of quick sand, even limiting it to 'official' reviews. [[User:Mgailp|MGailP]] 04:15, July 17, 2011 (UTC) | ||
: | |||
:I do reviews of Dr. Who on the IMDB and that's tough enough that I've spoken with friends who are competent writers and editors because I can't seem to make my points without irritating a lot of people. It's an exceedingly tough racket and on top of that, I find -- forgive me if this sounds harsh -- a fairly low level of competence with basic English composition here. A lot of the articles that I try to edit here for language miss on those basics. I have a hard time believing that some one incapable of subject-verb agreement, consistency of tense and knowledge of the appropriate articles and conjunctions is capable of cogently expressing an insight into the intersection of thousands of talented individuals over forty-eight years. On the other hand I wouldn't mind a basic numerical rating that people can simply check off. A lot of people do understand what is going on in Doctor Who while lacking the skill to express it well. A numerical rating can express the fact that we know what we like without the difficult task of convincing an audience who dislikes it that there are standards besides one's own. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 00:12, July 18, 2011 (UTC) | |||
==I'm on the fence== | ==I'm on the fence== | ||
Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | Conditionally in favour if done ''right'' and ''well'', but too many personal points against to actually say "Yes we should". I don't really see reviews as "behind the scenes" sections. Not to mention someone will invariably use forum posts or blogs or "some circles of fans" even ''with'' all the rigourous sourcing. Even though I agree I need to be more critical about the faults of the Whoniverse's writing, I'd still rather make my own conclusions on episodes rather than listen to either the fans or critics. And I really hate the idea of "proving" something sucking or ruling based on consensus of what others think. Awards and AI figures I think are enough. I'd also qualify ranked episodes in magazine polls as non-reviews. [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] 15:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
