Talk:Mister America

	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 American cinema task force.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reception[edit]

I am challenging the fact it says this movie was met with negative reviews. Looks positive here:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mister_america — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dermato1, But the citation is for Metacritic, that has a negative reception. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed it because the Metacritic score went up enough to count as "mixed," anyway, but just saying "Mister America was met with negative reviews from critics." without clarification that that statement was based specifically on the Metacritic score seems to me like it was flat-out wrong (or at best very misleading) regardless. Alphius (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither wrong nor misleading, as it was sourced. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sourced statement can still be misleading. Let's say the article said nothing but "Mister America was met with negative reviews," and cited only Metacritic (before the score had gone up). It would be accurately sourced, but misleading - and arguably wrong by implication - because it would seem to indicate that the film received predominantly negative reviews when that wasn't in fact the case. The reception was obviously mixed. In context, the statement was less misleading than it could have been since it followed a statement regarding the mixed Rotten Tomatoes score, but it was still misleading. Changing the statement to specifically mention Metacritic could have been more appropriate. Alphius (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphius, That is exactly what it is saying and it would be as accurate as anything else could be. New reviewers wrote their opinion and the critical consensus shifted but at the time, all of the reviews were negative, therefore, the consensus was negative. The statement used a template that explicitly calls out Metacritic and always has. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews according to Metacritic were negative, but the overall reception to the film was mixed. Metacritic includes less reviews than other aggregators like RottenTomatoes, and in a context where the more general reviews were in fact mixed, saying only that the film received negative reviews without explicitly stating that the one characterizing the reviews as negative was Metacritic is misleading. (Yes, the statement is followed by a sentence describing the Metacritic score, but that comes across as a more specific indication of the reviews being negative, not as the reason for the statement that the reviews were negative.) I do see that it's the way the template is set up, but that just indicates that it's a broader issue with the template itself. I've pointed it out on the talk page for the template now, too. Alphius (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphius, We can only say what reliable sources say. Until/unless a source contradicts that, we have to only publish verifiable things.