This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics 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.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Edit: Removed the harmless but pointless comment regarding "mixed reviews", and a referenced article from "Anime Feminist" There is a single review mentioned, expressing one person's perspective, on the first 3 episodes, but the way it was summarized by the contributer combined their initial reaction from their EP1 review, being "nauseated" by the first five minutes and put-off by its representation of sex, with what was eventually an optimistic, positive, if hopeful stance on the remainder of the show from their second retrospective which I would deem overall very positive -- the anime is now nearly at the conclusion of its second season, I see no reason for that review to be in any way representative of the anime's reception in totality or at all really, and its summary was doing even a disservice to the author's perspective themselves.
The show's got a 7.9 on IMDB, an 8.24 overall on MyAnimelist among fans, and just anecdotally the reception on AnimeNewsNetwork and on social media from my perspective has been extremely positive, especially the second season. I think the anime got some initially "mixed" reviews in the first few episodes of the first season .. But relying on a single "feminist Anime review" as a representation of the anime's reception and implying that it's problematic is disingenuous. Reeks a little to me, I was just scrolling through the page and it bugged me. My 2 cents -- the article would be better off with an aggregate representation of its reception than a Single Review labeling one of the characters as a "yellow flag" based on their behavior in the first couple episodes of the first season, especially when said original author's concluding words were net positive on their prospects for the anime's future. The mockup was a misleading collage of the reviews themselves, which are attached. [1]https://myanimelist.net/anime/52578/Boku_no_Kokoro_no_Yabai_Yatsu[2]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21423786/reviews/73.178.158.97 (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
https://www.animefeminist.com/the-dangers-in-my-heart-episode-1/https://www.animefeminist.com/2023-spring-three-episode-check-in/[reply]
To get to the point of your rambling comment, none of those links you provided would be acceptable to expand that section. Both are self-published links (generally self-published sources aren't acceptable on here), and including them would not help readers at all. I recently added some ANN reviews, but I have no interest, personally to add every single ANN review for every single episode, as that's too much work, and it would be undue weight on ANN. If people want to add more reviews besides ANN and Anime Feminist, that's fine, but the line about there being mixed reviews is NOT wrong, as it reflects the existing reviews. Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search in japanese shows near unilateral praise, but, I don't know what constitutes a "reliable review" (lol), so, I don't know what can/can't be added as a review. The anime is extremely highly rated by most watchers as well.
Given the number of editors for ANN, and how they don't all write the exact same opinions for everything (if anything, often disagree), I don't think it would be undue weight per se, given they're multiple people with differing opinions, and a massive publication at that.
But, that's my two cents as someone who's more into the history/technology side of the website. Maybe it would be best to WP:IAR and better reflect what people think of it, rather than pointing to a few reviews to make a determination on reception. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something has "mixed reviews" is not necessarily a negative, though, its just saying that not everyone gave it positive reviews. I wouldn't doubt that there is praise of the series, but even if so, it would need to be separated from what critics think, and must rely on reliable sources.
I added some ANN reviews already, not not the episode reviews here and here, as it might be a lot to slog through, and that same reviewer is already cited in the reception section.
Presently, the reception section has two sites for reviews, and I'm not sure I have the energy to look through the online reliable sources for the Anime and manga WikiProject to look for more reviews. So, I think what's there is enough for now. Perhaps the review from THEM Anime Reviews could be added, though. Some shows have NO reception section (which really is a shame, and definitely gives readers a false perception of series more times than not), so this page is already doing better than that. If we hold ourselves to standards that are too high, then nothing will get done on this site. Historyday01 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of "mixed reviews" is that it more or less means "no measurable consensus", meaning neither positive nor negative. Nowadays, most of our readers probably see "mixed" as the way steam uses "mixed", which would be below "mostly positive."
It does seem balanced and impartial as it currently is, but it seems at the cost of reliability and into a WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. Maybe we should cut 1-2 sentences (not full sentences, just the stuff in between commas) from the anifem review and add 2-3 sentences from the one you suggested.
We definitely shouldn't be adding reception on every episode from ANN, though, I agree with that. Maybe would change some of the opinions out with later opinions they give, since some of them are speculating on the future of a releasing series.
These are ideas though, more than suggestions, so feel free to shoot any of them down. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Anime Feminist section actually is pretty short at this point (four sentences), in comparison to the ANN paragraph (seven sentences), and I just added a paragraph for the THEM Anime Reviews review (four sentences) I mentioned. Personally, I don't think cutting down the Anime Feminist section would be worthwhile. So, that's three sites at this point. I think that's enough reviews for now. And those two sites balance the reception section more than previously. Historyday01 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about the review seciton being too potentially long, so I intended to make room for the new one by slightly cutting down on some of the old, but I like the way you've done it. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
