Wikipedia talk:Copyediting reception sections

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Many critics disliked the special effects"

Is removing "poor" viable from "Many critics disliked the poor special effects" to rm subjective claims made in Wikipedia's voice? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Popcornfud (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Best-of lists

I've just written a new essay, How to summarize mentions in best-of lists, as I find I am repeatedly fixing the same prose problems in this area. I was about to suggest it might be worth linking to from this article, but now I think of it, it might be worth merging it into this one. Open to suggestions or feedback. Popcornfud (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

A link makes sense, or a see also, but I'm less sure about merging. Someone pointed out when I wrote this that most people won't page down on an essay, so I tried to make sure it was no more than one page long with the examples collapsed, and I think that was a good decision. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool cool. I'm happy to keep them separate. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of quotes

On a similar topic to #"Many critics disliked the special effects" above, I sometimes see "Many critics disliked the "poor" special effects". Is this making subjective claims in Wikipedia's voice? Or, "The reviewer praised the author's "ability to combine fiction and reality"". Is this? Whonting (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

My take:

• Many critics disliked the poor special effects - no good, as Wikipedia is saying the special effects are poor, and that many critics disliked them
• Many critics disliked the "poor" special effects - better, as Wikipedia is quoting someone else's judgement that they are "poor" rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice

But I'd still say the second one could be improved. If "many" critics disliked the special effects, who specifically is being quoted when we write "poor" in quotation marks?

In this situation I'd just delete "poor" altogether and write "the special effects", as I think it's a given that if the critics disliked the special effects then they thought they were poor. But there are times when it's useful to quote, as in the second example you give (The reviewer praised the author's "ability to combine fiction and reality"). Popcornfud (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Popcornfud, and sorry for the poor example, introducing the red herring of multiple reviewers. I have another example that makes me nervous: "Goldmine's Phill Marder credited Cher's musical success to her "nearly flawless" song selection" -- this strikes me as giving undue credit to Marder's appraisal, and the tone reads as dramatically more objective than "Goldmine's Phill Marder credited Cher's musical success to her song selection, describing it as "nearly flawless". Do you get the same impression? Whonting (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in emphasis or objectivity in either phrasing. To me it's clear that the "nearly flawless" is a quote and not Wikipedia's opinion. So personally I'd use the short version, because it's, well, shorter.

(Also I should make clear, btw, that I'm not the author of this essay! I'm just a dork with strong feelings about reception sections, lurking on the talk page. Other editors' opinions may differ.) Popcornfud (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)