Avatar: The Last Airbender has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
@Toa Nidhiki05: I fail to understand how sources reporting their own sites' scores can be "not reliable". The question is whether they're relevant, which I think they are. Furthermore, the IMDb rating consists of both audience and critics scores (there is no separate rating section for critics), and I could include the Rotten Tomatoes critics score (which happens to be 100%), too, if you'd prefer that. Iroh (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I see. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score will be replaced by its critics score, then. Would it be acceptable to keep the IMDb source, but use the word "ranked" instead? It is, after all, a critical publication in the sense that the ranked list of TV series has certain conditions (100K+ ratings), and their ratings include those of the site's critics. This would be akin to the "As of August 2019, Rotten Tomatoes has listed the film fourth on its list of the "Best Superhero Movies of All Time",[10][note 1]" sentence in the lead section of Wonder Woman (2017 film). Iroh (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
No. IMDb is user-generated and thus is not reliable. Including the actual critic reviews from RT, however, would be acceptable. ToaNidhiki05 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
IMDb's ranked lists are partially user-generated, just like their Rotten Tomatoes counterparts, which are apparently "reliable". Would you please care to explain the difference? Iroh (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
How are RT lists user-generated? They are editorial pieces written by staff that take existing Tomatometer ratings and put them in a lit. IMDb scores are user-generated and thus aren't reliable. ToaNidhiki05 19:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, you were right to remove WP:USERGENERATED audience scores, user voted web polls are simply not reliable sources. MOS:TVRECEPTION also makes it clear that IMDb scores are not allowed. Although Rotten Tomatoes lists this show as having a score of 100% that is based on a combination of 9 reviews for season 1, 6 reviews for season 2, and 5 reviews for season 3, a total of only 20 reviews. Not a whole lot. It seems WP:UNDUE to put this in the intro, when Rotten Tomatoes is not mentioned at all in the "Critical response" section of the article, because the intro is supposed to summarize what is in the article. I would suggest moving it out of the intro and down to the "Critical response" section. -- 109.77.195.200 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I still think it is misleading to put such emphasis on the 100% score from Rotten Tomatoes, and do not think it should be included in the intro. Again I recommend moving it down into the critical response section. -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It is good that the Rotten Tomatoes 100% was moved out of the intro but the Critical response section still fails to include proper context. At the very least "the show has a critics score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes" should be changed to "the show has a critics score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes based on reviews from 20 critics". (For comparison Rotten Tomatoes counted 190 reviews for the much maligned film, compared to just 20 reviews for 3 seasons of the show. It is misleading to try and present an impressive looking 100% when it is based on an unimpressive 20 reviews.) -- 109.76.195.210 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I should have double-checked, and it is probably because the show has been getting so much attention on Neflix, but the number of reviews is as of July 2020 a total of 23 (season 1: 10[1]; season 2: 6[2]; season 3: 7[3]). -- 109.76.195.210 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor just corrected "Firelord" to "Fire Lord", saying the two-word spelling is used by "official sources". What official sources are these? The show itself uses the spelling "Firelord" onscreen, in the episode title "The Avatar and the Firelord". AJD (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean; but I'm not necesarily convinced that those sources should outweigh the spelling used on the show itself. AJD (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You make a good point, too. It's just that the vast majority of canon/official sources spell it as "Fire Lord", and quite frankly, I think that works much better aesthetically. Imagine for instance the Earth King being spelled as "Earthking". Iroh (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that in the comics section (5.1.1), space is given to the Hebrew translation. The information is correctly referenced, but I feel that it should not be included in the article. For instance, what about other translations? Is there a specific reason why Hebrew is important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.125.73.58 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Done DarkFallenAngel (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 
Done
Already done This appears to already have been done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Already done This appears to already have been done 
No comments:
Post a Comment