Jump to content

Talk:Bad Biology

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

Missing Information and Expansion

[edit]

This article is missing important information on the film's production which needs to be added to the article. The plot summary should also be expanded a little bit more as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bad Biology. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

[edit]

"Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 100% of five surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating is 7.2/10." Five is the minimum number of critis to even get a rating percentage at all on Rotten Tomatoes. That number is really far too low to be reliable. A result of 100% while users only gave 36% is pretty misleading. 77.185.153.180 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User ratings are irrelevant per WP:USERG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]