Talk:Ennu Ninte Moideen

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Promotional nonsense[edit]

In these edits I cleaned out some of the promotional nonsense from the article. This is typical, irresponsible editing that is prolific in Indian film articles. One source, Filmibeat, described the critical response as "acclaim". We don't use one source's opinion as that improperly elevates their opinion over other sites' opinions. For instance, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not always in agreement about aggregated critical response values. Metacritic might describe the response as "average" while Rotten Tomatoes might give it a "Fresh" rating. The second reference, which was used to describe audience response, is of no particular value, since we don't care about audience response unless it comes from a statistical analysis, like CinemaScore. (We don't care about IMDb ratings, etc). The last major problem was "It is one of the highest grossing Malayalam films and is considered as one of the best films made in the past few years in Malayalam." The gross content belonged in the box office section, which is where I put it, but "...considered as one of the best films made..." is vague POV fluff and constitutes weasel wording. Cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to use sites like Rotten Tomatoes to establish the fact that the film received critical acclaim. You should be aware that most Malayalam Films do not have a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic entry. Then how could we go for such sources to obtain a critical consensus. Filmibeat source does say the film received critical acclaim and also almost all the revews listed in the critical response section testify to that. It can't be considered promotional. And how come being one of the highest grossing films be removed from the lead. Perhaps the most important fact about the film is the audience response it received and the huge collection it garnered in a few days. These facts are verified by third party sources and definitely be mentioned in the lead. Also "being considered as one of the best films" stuff does not only come from a single source. Two of the reviews also mention the same. Then why can't it be included. We have pages like "List of films considered best" and several films are classified "the best" because some critics or some reputed source have described them so. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you wrote this, I had already restored some of the critical evaluation, credited to the sources appropriately. I am well aware that there is no reliable Rotten Tomatoes analog for Indian cinema, but I am also aware that one person's opinion about the critical response (especially if limited to one showing) does not make a unimpeachable fact, especially in the promo-heavy world of Indian cinema where we need to be very careful that we're presenting encyclopedic, not promotional content.

As to your other points, "considered the best" is vague weasel wording, which I've already explained. While it is true that some consider it the best, it is equally as true that others do not consider it the best, like this reviewer at Behindwoods who gives it slightly more than 3 stars or this review at Times of India which also gave it 3.5 stars. Or IndiaGlitz which gave it 3.5/5. Or this review from Rediff giving it 3/5 stars. And Filmibeat, who we're using as a source for "acclaim!" only gave it 4/5 stars. Even sites I wouldn't use as reliable sources weren't dazzled: 3/5 stars. 3.5/5 stars. The equivalent of 4/5 stars. 3.5. 3-4 stars is not "the best", so making a general proclamation like this is grossly irresponsible. When editors cherrypick reviews that are favorable to their POV, then attempt to summarize all critical response based on those carefully selected reviews, that is inappropriate, as demonstrated. More problematic, we're talking about a recent movie that hasn't yet been seen through the filter of time. Will it be considered the best in 5 years? Who knows.

As for listing the box office "record" in the lead, it seems promotional to me, and it's also ephemeral, i.e. it's one of the top five highest grossing Malayalam films of all time so far. I might consider yielding on this issue, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]