Critical acclaim, positive, generally positive, mostly positive, mixed to positive...[edit]

The film received reviews. There were positive reviews. There were negative reviews. There were reviews that were both positive and negative. There were reviews that you and I might not agree as to whether they were positive, negative, both, neither or something else altogether. We do not know what all of the reviews were.

If we did agree, without exception as to whether each review was positive, negative or something else, we might be able to agree as to whether the reviews were "generally", "mostly", "positive", "mixed", "flavorful", "verbose", "mean-spirited" or something else. We would then be able to tell people at a party that we both agreed as to what critics said about this film. It would still be synthesis.

We do not have a reliable source that says this film received verbose mean-spirited reviews from critics. We cannot characterize various individual reviews as verbose and/or mean-spirited and add them all up to say that the reviews were mostly verbose. That would be synthesis.

Rather, we have numerous randomly selected reviews and two review aggregators. One review aggregator, using their unique method, gives it a 72/100. Another, using an entirely separate system, comes up with a 92%. Faced with the choice of two professors, one whose class average is a 72/100 and the other is a 92%, one would have classes that fill up in the first hour of scheduling. The other would have classes full of freshmen every semester. They do not agree. We cannot make them agree. That would be synthesis. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Cabin in the Woods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cabin in the Woods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources to explore Suggestion

These three academic sources contain additional information on the film which would benefit the article. Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  14:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed

Doctoral Dissertations

@MagicatthemovieS: are you gonna take a look at this and try to work on it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of this within the next month or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Apparently the nominator has neglected his duty to resolve the concerns raised by the reviewer, as the article has not had an edit since the review was initiated. I think it's safe to say that this nomination be closed. Slightlymad 08:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "The next month or so" is not what a nominator should be saying. Reviews should be done in 1-14 days usually unless serious issues are present. Failing unless someone comes forward with continuation — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - comprehensiveness, particularly out-of-universe material, is wanting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories