Talk:To'hajiilee

Excellent source

This source from TV.com has links to other reviews of the same episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Universal acclaim"

The peacockery of a term cannot be in the article unless of course, we can cite where a reviewer calls it that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a peacock term by any stretch of the guideline's definition. It solely depends on whether it accurately reflects the available reviews. There is no need, and it would be utterly ludicrous for our guidelines to insist, that we require a meta-source to back up a specific term. How about a toned-down version, e.g. "overwhelming acclaim", which imho accurately reflects the sum total of reviews of this episode? Or is any kind of statement which summarizes the cross-section of reviews a big no-no in your opinion? Asking since nothing in our guidelines seems to indicate a project-wide consensus on that. --89.0.224.156 (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 89.0.224.156. "Universal" or "unanimous" critical acclaim is not a peacock term if the reviews can back up the term. Numerous articles use the same terms when there are an overwhelming number of positive reviews for an episode/show/album/film. I think the term would only be considered puffery if the use was not evident. In this case, "universal acclaim" is an accurate statement unless a negative review of the episode is added to the references. Just my input. NewsTeamAssemble (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but universal acclaim is - by definition - both a peacock as well as a leading term. I can guarantee you that someone with a hard-on against BB has or is going to write a bad review of the article, thereby negating the "universal" of the reviews. We are betternot gushing with enthusiasm over the series/episode and simply stating that the reviews have been positive. It has the virtue of being accurate while still allowing for a negative review here and there. Why paint yourself into a corner? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So, to reiterate the part which you deliberately ignored, what about "overwhelming acclaim"? --89.0.227.160 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I addressed it somewhat completely, anon89; "overwhelming" is your value judgment (ie.: original research) as to the body of criticism, and your judgments/opinions/etc. are immaterial where it comes to article content. Noting that the reviews have been 'positive' is both accurate and WP:NPOV. If you are still unsure of how we apply this policy, please ask an admin or two, or head on over to WP:NPOVN, and ask for some guidance there. If I can read it as a non-neutral gushing of BB-Love, then others would, too. Aim for brevity and non-neutrality - it is the only way we will elevate the article to GA or FA. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Sebastian. That clears it up for me. I understand the article not concluding universal acclaim if there is a possibility of negative reviews out there. I'll keep that in mind when reading other articles. Just to be clear, would there ever be an instance where universal acclaim would be an accurate statement for something in pop culture? NewsTeamAssemble (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A very good question, and one I haven't a clue as to the answer. Nothing springs to mind. Oh wait, how about Milli Vanilli not making records anymore? People seem to be pretty happy about them not being a Thing anymore. But then, that happened. So I guess no. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Very true. I see that you're really well versed in pop culture. As a new editor and movie/tv aficionado, do you have any suggestions of where I can join in and gain some experience? NewsTeamAssemble (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm a second-generation Wikipedian, so I'll give you the same advice my Dad gave me: follow your interests. Follow them, but don't be chained to them. Participate in articles about subjects that interest you, or you want to learn more about. If you see that there isn't an article about something you want to write about, start an article yourself. There's no faster way to learn (by trial and error, mostly) how to do it. Also, ask questions. Seriously. The true ass-pants in Wikipedia are those who think they know every damn thing. The truth is - for me at least - is that if I don't learn something new every time I edit, my time has been wasted. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Sebastian, seriously. I'll definitely keep your advice in mind. I may come back to you with more questions one of these days. I really appreciate you helping me out! News Team Assemble ^[!!!] 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to come to me any time you have a question. A lot of users were nice to me when I started out, so I'm just paying it forward. If you are so inclined, you could look ingot being mentored. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it Jack Sebastian! Would you have any interest in mentoring someone? News Team Assemble ^[!!!] 16:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I do mentor someone. It's called a toddler, and he takes up most of my free time. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)