I'm very disappointed by a series of edits by User:BoogerD that replaced all the early reviews of the show with an entirely different selection of reviews (this was the first large edit that removed reviews). No explanation was given for this change was given, the simple rules ask that editors at least provide edit summaries. Edits made in good faith should not be deleted without any explanation.
Some reviewers may be more notable than others but it was very strange to delete a review from trade publication Variety magazine. If it was about notability then Uproxx is strange choice.
I restored the reviews that were deleted, and then made a minor edit to regroup them. Deleting reviews was not a "bold choice" it was rude and unfair, and showed a lack of good faith. In any case I have reverted, there should be discussion before deleting any reliably sourced reviews. I've no problem with more reviews being added but I strongly object to properly sourced reviews being deleted without any explanation. I hope we don't need to drag a group of admins into this discussion and I see no reason why we can't keep all the reviews. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The previous wording made it clear that the reviewers only got to see 4 episodes before they wrote their reviews. It is possible that there was a misunderstanding about this but none of the reviewers have more than 4 episodes yet. Some reviewers make it clear, other reviewers are less honest, and Rotten Tomatoes especially makes it look like as if reviewers are judging the whole season, when it simply isn't the case. This still isn't an reason to delete reviews without any explanation. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Same as before it makes no sense to delete reviews from a reputable source such as Variety but to keep reviews from a less well known such as Uproxx. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)