This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
I've looked through dozens of articles for documentary films, and all of them just reference the film as a "documentary" and no other genre. Should the lead just reference that its a documentary film instead? Rather than both a comedy and documentary. Not sure on the Wiki's guidelines for this. TheOneTwoGo (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles generally follow how the most reliable sources describe a subject, per WP:BESTSOURCES. At least two sources, including Variety, call it a mockumentary. Variety also calls it a satire. So far, there does not appear to be a consensus in the sources about which genre to use, so more than one description may be warranted per WP:VOICE. Llll5032 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I wrote of Matt's response to a critical review and put youtube in the ref for it. I was reverted and when enquired was told Youtube was not reliable. Apparently it cant be used to source something so trivial as Matt responding to a critical review on his own Youtube channel, I guess that isn't an exception to the reliability rule. But Matt's X was linked in the critical review section to quote him on mainstream critics not reviewing it. So what is going on here? I would like to reinsert the link. I think that I was arbitrarily reverted. 2603:9001:300:81A:80AF:3887:B4E7:8512 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@172.249.207.71: We try, as much as possible, to use independent sources. That is, we want to use sources that aren't as closely connected to the topic of the article as the stars, the director, the production company, etc. We generally want a layer of fact-checking and/or someone else (reporter, author, etc.) finding the claim notable in between us and the creators. Snowman304|talk22:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the Rotten Tomatoes aggregation numbers, no RS yet appears to have summarized critics' reception in words. Rotten Tomatoes currently lists 14 reviewers with 71% giving positive reviews, but its only listed "top critic" gave it a negative review.[1] Most mainstream critics appear to have skipped the movie, and Walsh has criticized them for that. Should a critics' rating be mentioned in one of the top paragraphs, and if so, what is a typical neutral way to describe a movie with such a reception? Llll5032 (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two more reasons to be skeptical about including an assessment of critics in the second paragraph without some additional explanation. First, Rotten Tomatoes does not include a "Critics Assessment" statement for this film[1] as it typically includes for other films[2]. Second, the other film aggregator, Metacritic, does not list enough critics' reviews to assign it an average[3] a month after the film's release. Llll5032 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOneTwoGo, your edits have added the wording "to positive reviews"[2] and "to generally positive reviews"[3], and changed and re-changed wording to "received generally positive reviews from critics" [4][5] in the second paragraph. Can we achieve a workable consensus that, perhaps, either includes more of the nuances, or omits the assessment from the second paragraph but keeps the information in the Reception section? Llll5032 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
