Talk:Wolf Warrior 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:06, 31 August 2017

China: Cinema Start‑class Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Chinese 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 Chinese cinema task force.

Untitled

"Lamanla infected bodies"? What's this? An invention of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neils51 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal explained

I recently removed some reviews from the "critical reception" of this article. Here are my explanations.

These reviews I removed are all negative ones and were all added by a single 安眠3 who has been good at adding negative content which vilifies China and its government unselectively, e.g.1, 2, 3 and others.
By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film. Nevertheless, 安眠3 even added "Yin Shanshan, a lecturer"'s irrational and biased review to this section.
Both NYT and Irish times's reviews even don't comment on the film itself. Conversely, the NYT review focuses on its "individualist personal quest" and asserts the film downplaying "the Communist Party in favor of patriotism and defending Chinese people and Chinese interests all over the world". In terms of the Irish times one, it's more laughable. This reviews concentrates on the film's reflection of so-called "China's thirst for expanding of its military forces aboard". Does this have anything to do with a film REVIEW which is supposed to be dedicated to one film's visual effects, the ability to tell stories, actors' performance and others.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 == Untitled ==
 "Lamanla infected bodies"?   What's this?  An invention of the movie?  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Neils51|Neils51]] ([[User talk:Neils51#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Neils51|contribs]]) 09:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Removal explained ==
+I recently removed some reviews from the "critical reception" of this article. Here are my explanations.
+# These reviews I removed are all negative ones and were all added by a single [[U|安眠3]] who has been good at adding negative content which vilifies China and its government unselectively, e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_hundred_meter_Aperture_Spherical_Telescope&diff=prev&oldid=796828407 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=790411136 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia%E2%80%93China_relations&diff=prev&oldid=788399040 3] and others.
+# By "critical reception", we mean this section should include film critics's reception on this film. Nevertheless, 安眠3 even added "Yin Shanshan, a lecturer"'s irrational and biased review to this section.
+# Both NYT and Irish times's reviews even don't comment on the film itself. Conversely, the NYT review focuses on its "individualist personal quest" and asserts the film downplaying "the Communist Party in favor of patriotism and defending Chinese people and Chinese interests all over the world". In terms of the Irish times one, it's more laughable. This reviews concentrates on the film's reflection of so-called "China's thirst for expanding of its military forces aboard". Does this have anything to do with a film REVIEW which is supposed to be dedicated to one film's visual effects, the ability to tell stories, actors' performance and others.