Talk:Miss Americana
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miss Americana article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The title of the article
editThe film's official title has been confirmed as "Miss Americana", and not "Taylor Swift: Miss Americana". This is supported by the film's Netflix window and the film's poster. Can we change the article's title to "Miss Americana"? BawinV (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have performed the move. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! BawinV (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Request to protect the page.
editRandom newly registered users have been vandalizing this page. I request an admin or anyone else who has the authority, to change the protection of this page to "extended confirmed users and above, only". BawinV (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but this article has never been protected and WP:ECP is not suitable for a case like this. Please do not edit war, even if provoked by returned users. I have not examined the edits but it is clear they are not vandalism per Wikipedia's definition at WP:VAND. Therefore, everyone has to stop using that term. Instead, focus on policies, probably WP:RS and WP:DUE. You may need to start an WP:RFC if asking for help at the wikiproject does not bring assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Critical reception
editThe Critical reception section should be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), and the removal of negative reviews in order to prevent the fair representation of all views is highly inappropriate. Additionally, posts from Twitter cannot be used as a source here (see WP:TWITTER). Please use this section if anyone would like to discuss this further instead of creating edit wars and using edit summaries as discussion forums. JustinDrewBelieber (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)JustinDrewBelieber
Please stop edit warring. The critical reception is perfectly balanced between 7 positive and 7 negative reviews. you've made 3 reverts already. You're a newly registered user. Please read the wiki guidelines to edit. BawinV (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The perfect balance is not 7 positive reviews and 7 negative reviews. WP:BALASP says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Critics were not divided 50/50 over this film. They were more positive than negative, so this article should not give undue weight to negative reviews. Using Metacritic as a rule of thumb since it categorizes reviews as positive, mixed, and negative, there are 16 positive reviews, 7 mixed, and 0 negative. So this means positive reviews should make up around 70% of the section and mixed reviews around 30%. Furthermore, it seems like reviews are being sampled incorrectly. Metacritic shows TheWrap and Variety to both have 70 out of 100, yet Variety is sampled to make it sound like the critic gave the film a negative review. One-sentence sampling of reviews is not a best practice because it over-simplifies the critic's perception (as what happened with Variety). Critical reception sections don't need dozens and dozens of one-sentence review samples. They can do with less samples and more from each one, with greater care in the case of mixed reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)