Wikinews talk:Reviews
Random comments[edit]
Interesting idea. While user-generated reviews are definitely a no-go due to the inherent POV problems, reporting on reviews made by established, reliable sources might be easier to handle. We'd have to be very careful, though, to have as many points of view covered as possible. But my main concern is, would film reviews pass our newsworthiness guidelines? I suppose so, if they were about a film that was released very recently, so it's possible to tie them in to current events. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have similar concerns, but I stumbled across this and decided that it has potential. I think it would pass our newsworthiness criteria—we've written plenty of articles about film releases before, and these aren't much different. Obviously, no original reporting would be allowed, simply an aggregation of the ratings and textual information from other sources ("X said that the film was "quote", but Y disagreed, saying that it was "quote"). Some kind of graphical rating bar at the top would be useful (I'll make a template in a moment or two). Also, to differentiate these from normal news articles, we should probably put "Review:" at the start of their names. Dendodge T\C 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another idea would be possibly using mw:Extension:CommunityVoice to allow users to give their own ratings on the Comments: page. If it's on the comments page, there's no need to follow NPOV, and users can accompany their own views about the film with a star rating. It's used on the usability wiki, which means the Foundation consider it stable enough for use on their wikis. Dendodge T\C 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposed template[edit]
Template:Film review I have created {{Film review}} to go on review articles. It can be seen to the right. If adopted, it should be accompanied by a list of the reviews used on the talk page. Dendodge T\C 22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
POV[edit]
Film reviews are so heavily POV, that there is no way to "unPOV" them. I'm sorry, but it is a matter of taste and opinion. You may love transformers, I may hate transformers, the next guy may think the CGI sucked, the next guy may think that if nothing else Megan Fox is super hot. We can "consolidate" real news because in the end, there are hard fact, even if they are skewed by one side of the other. The only "hard facts" there are in movies is the story line itself... and if you want a plot synopsis, goto Wikipedia. So, no matter what you do with this proposal, I'm gonna vote no. POV. POV. POV. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- The idea is something similar to the "critical reception" sections of Wikipedia articles—we try to balance the reviews without giving undue weight. I don't think these should be listed along with other articles on the main page, though— they should either have their own (small) section near the bottom, or simply a link in the header to a page with a separate DPL. A nice notice at the top of the page saying "This is a review, not a news article, and—while every effort has been made to balance the opinions expressed in the sources we aggregate—we cannot guarantee that this article conforms to our neutral point of view policy" (or something similar) would also be a good idea (I'm wondering whether we can incorporate that into {{Film review}}) Dendodge T\C 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Choosing the first Wikipedia Featured Article on a film alphabetically, w:300 (film)#Reviews is what I'm going for, but longer and more relevant date-wise. Many news websites have sections for reviews, and I feel that it is an area Wikinews should look into. Dendodge T\C 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- NPOV is kinda iffy, I dunno, perhaps we'd be able to manage it somehow. But the main problem I see is that it might lead to encyclopedisation. We'd have to find a film that was released within the last week or so (to be able to tie it in to current events), come up with many independent reviews written since then, and add the film's plot and background details for context. By that time we've basically come up with a miniature duplicate of the Wikipedia article on the same film, with little to no added benefit. Also, Dendodge's suggested notice "This is a review, not a news article, and—while every effort has been made to balance the opinions expressed in the sources we aggregate—we cannot guarantee that this article conforms to our neutral point of view policy" (bolded emphasis mine) is a not a very good idea, IMHO. Neutral point of view should be non-negotiable, at least in the main namespace. Just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a number of issues to be ironed out if this is to be adopted, and I'm not sure if it's worth it, but I think it's possible if we're careful. Dendodge T\C 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- NPOV is kinda iffy, I dunno, perhaps we'd be able to manage it somehow. But the main problem I see is that it might lead to encyclopedisation. We'd have to find a film that was released within the last week or so (to be able to tie it in to current events), come up with many independent reviews written since then, and add the film's plot and background details for context. By that time we've basically come up with a miniature duplicate of the Wikipedia article on the same film, with little to no added benefit. Also, Dendodge's suggested notice "This is a review, not a news article, and—while every effort has been made to balance the opinions expressed in the sources we aggregate—we cannot guarantee that this article conforms to our neutral point of view policy" (bolded emphasis mine) is a not a very good idea, IMHO. Neutral point of view should be non-negotiable, at least in the main namespace. Just my two pence. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Choosing the first Wikipedia Featured Article on a film alphabetically, w:300 (film)#Reviews is what I'm going for, but longer and more relevant date-wise. Many news websites have sections for reviews, and I feel that it is an area Wikinews should look into. Dendodge T\C 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)