Forum:Reception section conception

Forums - Reception section conception

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. While browsing Wikipedia, I've noticed that forms of media, particularly films, often have a section for "reception" by critics, experts, and/or audiences. I think that something like this would be a good addition to articles, particularly for sets. Of course it should probably be standardized in a way with a list of approved websites or reviewers so we can avoid the section being used as a billboard for "check out my new site bro" or "Help me buy even more stuff than you could ever imagine by watching my video review! I'll cry if you don't!" Anyway, if we are going to mention any reviewers by name, I'd prefer that they be gold star reviewers at Brickset or graduates from Eurobricks' Reviewer Academy. If you have any other ideas in regards to those or know of similar recognitions, let me know. Also, maybe putting something similar to Template:Images at the bottom of the section that says "Brickipedia has two reviews for set 12345 XXXXX here" would be a good way to incorporate the reviews namespace with the articles. So, basically the section would be something like "This set currently has a 3.8/5 star rating at Brickset.com. It has been criticized for not resembling any particular scene from the movie it is based on, but its play features have been cited as creative by most reviewers. Eurobricks Review Academy Instructor 'User' notes that despite being made up of rectangles, the final model resembles a double helix." Obviously it involves picking and choosing to create a general idea (and superficial stuff should be omitted :P) which might not be something we would want to go for, but I think that something like this would be a neat feature for us to incorporate, and I know we are looking to incorporate new stuff now.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I'd support, so long as it's only a requirement for new C2 or C1 articles. Having to add this to all of the current pages would be a pain. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I wouldn't even suggest that. But I'd make it more of a "going forward" sort of thing. Even adding it to all current C2/C1/FA articles would be a pain. Berrybrick (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC) We should certainly have a section for this, however it does need to have everything in it cited since I don't want a bunch of random kids' opinions being put in our articles. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Definitely. I forgot to mention that. Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I'd be ok with it, as like Meiko said, everything was sourced, and only certain reputable sites and reviewers were used as Berrybrick said. (and since virtually nothing is sourced around here as it is, I guess I have my doubts). (shop.lego.com star rating should probably be used alongside the Brickset one) NovaHawk 22:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The star ratings seem like they'd be hard to keep up to date though. I think we should only include reviews from critics from notable sources, not a user-generated star rating system that's subject to change. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. I don't think the star rating should be used, though. -LFY1547 00:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC) The thing about the star tables is that they provide an average of a group of people. Yes, it is subject to change, but it won't by much especially if it is done with a set which has several reviews which is what it should be used for. If some big name reviewer gives set 1221 only a star but someone just getting into LEGO gave it five, that would make it a three star rating which may not be very representative of the set, but if we have 10 agreeing with the first guy, then it is. I digress, but basically I still support using star ratings from Brickset and maybe LEGO.com. Berrybrick (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) It sounds good to me, as long as its not a 'requirement' - more an optional extra. I think that for many sets, there might not be that much to say, and I don't think we should make it a requirement. Optional, yeah. Required (for any level), no. Definitely, if a page has the section (and it is well-written), then it would make it more likely to pass a C1/FA nomination. Jag 04:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Reception Section Conception Support Section Interjection: Per all. This seems like a neat thing to have for top-tier articles, or for sets where it is especially relevant for some reason (really loved/hated); but it should by no means be a requirement. -Cligra (Totally agree that it shouldn't be a requirement NovaHawk 06:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)) @Jag & Nova: I spoke with BFN about that in PM and guess I never mentioned it here. I was thinking that it should be a C1 requirement, but moving forward. We don't need to go back to all current C1 and add it when this passes, unless someone wants to, of course. Berrybrick (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) And by requirement, I mean recommended. It won't always be possible to find a lot of high quality reviews for a set. No reason to hold an otherwise good article back because of that. Berrybrick (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Recommended for c1+ sounds good to me. Where do you think it should go in the article? After the minifigure gallery? NovaHawk 23:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I'd do it between the background and minifigure gallery. I always thought the minifigure gallery was near the end so that it would come after all the written stuff. Besides, this way it could be something to add to keep the minifigure gallery from creating those ugly margins. Berrybrick (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Support. Sounds like it could be good, but only for FA I think. LK901100 AE - TLM RP 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)