Talk:The Siege of Jadotville (film)

	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 War films task force.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: War films / African / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force
	African military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

User scores[edit]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. User:Guliolopez added the Metacritic user score this article. The Rotten Tomatoes critic scores are allowed. The Metacritic critic score is also allowed (but there is no critic score available on Metacritic for this film). The Metacritic _user score_ is not allowed, because it is WP:USERGENERATED and not a reliable source. IMDB users scores, Rotten Tomatoes audiences scores, Metacritic user scores, etc are not allowed.

To paraphrase another editor: The New York Times is reliable, the letters to the editor are not reliable. User generated content is not a reliable source WP:RS and should not have been added. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There must be an misunderstanding indeed.

While I understand the comment about a "Metacritic user score" versus a "Metacritic critic score", and am happy for that to be removed, that is NOT what your edit has done. What your edit has done is

Removed the "Metacritic user score". OK. While I disagree that this is needed or supported by convention or the applicable policies and guidelines (including WP:UGC, WP:AGG and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) if you feel strongly that it might be confusing to a reader (the difference between user scores and critic scores) then I'm just about OK with this being removed.
Changed the Rotten Tomatoes "Tomatometer" score from 64% to 60%, and the number of reviews from 11 to 10 Despite neither change being reflective of the source. This is not OK. And I don't see any justification for inventing stuff not in the source.
"Invented" a Rotten Tomatoes "average rating" score of 6.2/10. Despite the fact that the source neither mentions the concept of an "average rating" or a number of 6.2 out of anything.

I have made a further edit to the article. To address these verification (and apparent WP:SYNTH) issues. If I am missing something, and there is a page or content somewhere on the linked reference that mentions "60%", "6.2/10" or "average rating" or any of this other stuff, then please highlight it. Guliolopez (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Metacritic user score is simply not allowed. It should never have been added and removing it should not have taken multiple edits. If you are in any doubt and want an outside opinion I suggest you ask at WT:FILM. This was my overriding concern. User voted web polls are not reliable. Unreliable sources are not allowed and the WP:BURDEN is on editors who add them to make sure what they add is properly sourced.

My edit reverted to WP:STATUSQUO, restoring the previous Rotten Tomatoes score. There was no need to accuse me of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for reverting to an older version of this article.

I accept I could have done things slightly differently and updated instead of reverting but a slightly out of date Rotten Tomatoes score does not make a significant difference. I have no problem with people updating the Rotten Tomatoes score, so long as they do it without adding unreliable user scores. (You are welcome to specify AS OF if you really want but since the reference already includes an access date this seems redundant and pedantic. The text also lists the number of reviews counted so plenty of context has been provided.) The Rotten Tomatoes page lists a score of 64%[1] if you click on the number 64% it provides more details "64% 11 Reviews 6.20 out of 10 average rating". Many film articles include this average rating, and again I was not adding anything simply restoring what had already been in the article. If you don't want to include the Rotten Tomatoes average rating then please be aware that other editors may try to add it to the article. If in doubt about film articles as Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and also check out Featured articles, because there is a lot of defacto consensus and best practice for how a good film article should be that hasn't made it all the way to the documentation.

I edited this article to remove the user scores, that has been done. Unfortunately the Reception section still has more problems like the claim that "We Got This Covered rated the film 70%" and "Robert Abele of the Los Angeles Times rated the film 50%" which is not technically wrong but is another very very weird editing choice. -- 109.76.201.113 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]