 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
A debate has arisen in the Criticism section of SFL.
It seems phrases such as "scolded by Critics and viewers alike", "a half hour advertisement" and "cheap and tacky" are not from a neutral point of view.
The first phrase "scolded by Critics and viewers alike" is not sourced or attributed in any way. This is an opinion, not a fact. Yet it is stated as fact.
Wikipedia's own discussion on Neutral Point of View states: "...we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct.
It's OK to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it's a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example "Supporters of this say that..." or "Notable commentator X believes that..."
By adding ratings information, i LOVE SEXY LONG TIME - that SFL did indeed win its timeslot across Australia - helps balances the arguement. Deleting this information makes it one sided.
Rather than deleting or reverting the text, add to it - keeping both sides of view.
Dyson21 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)