Jump to content

Talk:Upstream Color

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

sections copied from web source

Parts of the article have been taken verbatim from a Slate FAQ. While the source is linked directly (not as a proper reference) in the article, the copied text is not marked as a citation and would in any case probably have to be paraphrased as it is too long. --88.72.239.88 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

From reading the reception section, it really gives the impression in the opening paragraphs that the movie is universally well-received. If you look at metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/upstream-color) at the user(i.e. viewer) reviews, this movie gets generally mixed reviews. I have heard it's awful from many sources, and read many critics reviews that dislike the movie, yet the article is very bias in this instance; no? 194.46.173.157 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the link you yourself provided, you will notice that the film has a rating of 81 (out of 100) which is interpreted by Metacritic as having "universal acclaim" based on "27 critics". Timbouctou (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, from pretentious asshole critics. Viewer reviews are SIGNIFICANTLY different. I've modified the article to represent such.194.46.173.157 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSFILM, we only include reviews from legitimate film critics, with very few exceptions. Viewer rankings can be used only when part of a poll by an actual polling firm, such as CinemaScore. User rankings are never to be used. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/23/sundance-festival-upstream-color-first-look-review 194.46.173.157 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's one negative review, which is already in the article. There are others, of course. But keep in mind that 113 out of 133 reviews (84%) at Rotten Tomatoes are positive, earning it a "Certified Fresh" label. And Metacritic gives it a score of 81, which they call "Universal acclaim". Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also reverted. I don't have a problem with including the source or adjusting the wording, however the source says "generally positive reviews" which isn't the same as 'mixed'. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]