Talk:Unicorn Store

Location

What is the location for the shop filming. When empty it looked like some temple. Probably a masonry sect. The article lacks this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.27.146.20 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Production

The blow-by-blow casting details were tedious and I understand why the editor removed them but the Production history of this film needs to expanded in more details, such as previous directors attached to the project, and I believe Rebel Wilson was at one point attached as star. Should be easier after the film has been released. -- 109.79.93.130 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to give it undue emphasis but maybe when the article is bigger we can mention how publicly Netflix voiced their support from Larson in response to claims she wasn't sufficiently qualified to direct. -- 109.76.247.69 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviews

User:Sebastian_James failed to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide an edit summary when he deleted a review without any explanation. Deleting properly sourced articles without an edit summary does not show WP:GOODFAITH. Also the IGN review he added was extremely negative, a total hatchet job. That put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the negative reviews when the reviews are mixed.

When challenged he then stated "Maybe because you cant source every article you see on Wikipedia?" and it is unclear what he meant by that because the review had been properly sourced. He also claimed "CineVue has no notability" but CineVue is on listed Metacritic (which is far more selective about the reviewers it lists than Rotten Tomatoes) and there are many Wikipedia film articles that reference CineVue and this is the first I've heard of anyone objecting to it being used.

I have no problem with edits that attempt provide a wider mix of opinion or to set a balance by adding more reviews, but it isn't okay to delete reliably sourced reviews. -- 109.76.149.106 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you see CineVue's WP page, neither do I. Because there is almost nothing notable and encyclopedic (links, sources, coverages etc.) about it. So is it better to use this source or using EW instead of this? I have no problem with edits that attempt provide a wider mix of opinion or to set a balance. Really queen? That's what you are saying? All I can see was you insisting 2 positive reviews and one negative review. Is it balanced? (look to your harped on Metacritic, the metascore is 45, do you seriously think it is more positive than negative?) IGN's review is so close to the film's metascore, how is it "a strong and unfair criticism" (hatchet job)? Sebastian James (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM tells people to be selective about including Awards, and to prefer Awards that are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. There is no such suggestion that we should be that selective about film reviews. (If you are concerned about the notability of film reviews why pick IGN and not Variety.com or any of the Top critics.)

Metacritic says "mixed or average reviews" as I said mixed. It breaks down the 15 reviews and summarizes 2 of them as positive, 3 of them as negative, and the other 10 as mixed, so it is mixed but overall a small bit more negative than positive. I did not insist on any number of reviews, I only object to deleting a reliably sourced review.

IGN gave the film 4.3 out of 10 but the text you chose from the article "the best thing I can say about Unicorn Store is its only 92-minutes long" was the most harsh part of the whole review. [1]

Great that you added the review from EW but that is still no reason to delete the CineVue review, the section has plenty of room to expand and include more reviews. It is even more inappropriate for you to delete my comments from the Talk page. -- 109.76.149.106 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree CineVue is a usable source but we can still look at any specific review's usefulness. I don't use MetaCritic but from my own experience with Rotten Tomatoes my instinct is that 55% is a little more negative than "mixed" might lead you to believe, in that a good chunk of "good" reviews are likely to conclude a film is "redeemable" rather than necessarily worth going to see. Since the Rotten Tomatoes summary doesn't include anything overtly negative, I think Sebastian's edit nearly had the right balance, though slightly too far on the negative side just because of the length of the IGN quote. (The new EW line is more descriptive than critical.) Personally, I think the reviews currently included are more interesting and have more specific comments than the extract from the comparatively short CineVue review. On the other hand, I can also see that our section as it stands doesn't clearly show that there were also people who enjoyed it with fewer reservations. However, if wholeheartedly positive critics don't form a significant distinct block from more reservedly positive ones (the CineVue one itself gives it four rather than five stars and admits it "may well prove too twee for some, and it’s debatable whether the ending really hits the resolution that Kit needs"), then I'm not sure that's our job.

My recommendation, since I have to make one, would be to get rid of the line "Despite all the magic, unicorns, and glitter, there's not much fun or whimsy to Unicorn Store." from IGN review since the following lines make it mostly redundant, and to maybe include a different short and positive quote from somewhere (ideally a more analytical one). For example:

The Independent gave it a good review, praising its "earnest emotion" and "joyous celebration of femininity."

or

Zimbio's Kristen Lopez wrote: "Unicorn Store won't set the world on fire, but it reminds women that should appreciate the things they love, no matter how silly they are."

which I would go for myself. (As a separate thing, Linda Holmes from NPR said "Kit is what a Manic Pixie Dream Girl would be like if the story were actually about her" which I might like to include somehow though the point's already been made.)

In short, CineVue seems perfectly good to use in general but the impression I get is that the article is mostly in line with the critical consensus already, and I wouldn't personally opt for this particular CineVue article over other things we could have.

Anyway, remember to assume good faith. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Crying about an editor on a film article's talk page IS inappropriate. I did not insist on any number of reviews: Seriously? Look here. And again, this is NOT Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, Wikipedia only gathers and cites info about a film's rating and review count (+critic consensus in Rotten Tomatoes' case). Being a "Top Critic" on RT doesn't mean the reviewer's reviews will be privileged. Being a relaible and notable source is enough. Sebastian James (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What Sebastian calls crying, I call an editor being rude, deleting without proper explanation, and then turning around and calling the other editor disruptive, not exactly WP:GOODFAITH.

The 3rd opinion from ReconditeRodent politely says CineVue would be okay to use, but suggests using different sources instead. While I think I've every right to restore the CineView article I will instead add the Independent as suggested. He also suggests shortening the IGN quote, so I will repeat my shortening of that quote. -- 109.78.219.98 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then we all agree that you are rude, since I was mentioning you when I wrote "crying about an editor on a film article's talk page IS inappropriate." One opinion is not a consensus, it is just an opinion. Sebastian James (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please shorten the IGN quote as the third opinion suggested. -- 109.76.225.99 (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References