Talk:Old Dogs (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:45, 1 December 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old Dogs (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Old Dogs (film). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Old Dogs (film) at the Reference desk.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: American Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Quality of article

Did the person who wrote this article have no more than a Grade 6 education? I do not mean that with disrespect; I am genuinely curious. The article is very poorly constructed, especially the actual recap of the movie story line. Please have someone rewrite it with proper sentence construction and logical flow of information. Jeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.185.171 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot section was written by Special:Contributions/99.147.204.236. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then a modified version by Special:Contributions/68.94.27.14. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many reviews and they're bias

I just to recommend that I think they are too many reviews. Can we try to trim them down to at least 10?. One thing I want to add is that the whole reception section of the page is completely negative reception towards the film making the whole section "BIAS". But's there one exception I read which was Carrie Rickey for The Philadelphia Inquirer who gave the film a mixed response. So can we try to find some positive reviews or something? Well, I would love to hear from you! (talk 04:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Old Dogs at Rotten Tomatoes. With a rating of 7%, that is pretty much negative. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added back Pete Hammond, but Rickey was already included. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Rotten Tomatoes is not a good source. Please check the rating from the community, it is 73%. Rotten Tomatoes is EXTREMELY biased it would seem. Also, this article is not a neutral point of view, it feels more like a review. Shicoco (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes is accepted on film articles to show aggregated critics' reviews. "Community" votes are not an WP:RS source. In this instance, Rotten Tomatoes is most certainly not "biased". Cirt (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing bias in the reception section. If the reviews are negative, they are negative. Neutrality does not mean we ignore the negative reception and somehow pretend it is less so. Rotten Tomatoes aggregate numbers for the critics numbers. Nor are they biased. Sorry if you liked the film, but it seems pretty clear that critics do not. If you have some positive reliable critical reviews to demonstrate some liked it, feel free to list, but otherwise your tagging is inappropriate/ The article is not biased, it is neutral, and there are not "too many reviews". Film articles are not limited to X reviews, but try to cover as many RS critical reviews as feasible. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this film was panned by critics, I find it awkard that comments from critics are found in the intro section of the article. Also, too many reviews for this unnotable film when compared to others. There are so many films that have no reception section that are much more notable than this film.

Going back to the biased thing, I partly agree with shicoco. I know this topic has already been discussed before, but professional critics don't reflect the reception by average movie goers. Maybe the "reception" section should be changed to "reception by professionals" or something similar. Just my opinion though. Ricardoread (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :There is nothing bias in the reception section. If the reviews are negative, they are negative. Neutrality does not mean we ignore the negative reception and somehow pretend it is less so. Rotten Tomatoes aggregate numbers for the critics numbers. Nor are they biased. Sorry if you liked the film, but it seems pretty clear that critics do not. If you have some positive reliable critical reviews to demonstrate some liked it, feel free to list, but otherwise your tagging is inappropriate/ The article is not biased, it is neutral, and there are not "too many reviews". Film articles are not limited to X reviews, but try to cover as many RS critical reviews as feasible. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
+::While I agree that this film was panned by critics, I find it awkard that comments from critics are found in the intro section of the article. Also, too many reviews for this unnotable film when compared to others. There are so many films that have no reception section that are much more notable than this film.
+::Going back to the biased thing, I partly agree with shicoco. I know this topic has already been discussed before, but professional critics don't reflect the reception by average movie goers. Maybe the "reception" section should be changed to "reception by professionals" or something similar. Just my opinion though. [[User:Ricardoread|Ricardoread]] ([[User talk:Ricardoread|talk]]) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)