Talk:The Rising of the Shield Hero

Added CBR article to reception

I added a paragraph referencing a Comic Book Resources article to the reception section. I hope i did everything correctly. If i made amistake, plese let me know. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is quoting at length from a critic's review really appropriate for an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be sufficient to include CBR in the first paragraph without extended quotations? i.e. "Several Anime News Network and Comic Book Resources reviewers..." and then provide the associated articles as links in the footnotes? It is one thing to quote the producer of the show, but reviews by critics are opinion. The edit itself even uses the word "speculates", as if to underline that the statements have no basis in fact. The award that the show won was given a single sentence, while there are three entire paragraphs about controversy, quoting two critics' opinions at length multiple times. For what it's worth, these opinions seem to be at odds with the reviews given by users on multiple different platforms for review (4.7/5 on Crunchyroll's site, 8.1/10 on IMDB, 8/10 on MyAnimeList). Yes, we can verify that the reviewers did in fact write those words, but does that make their statements in and of themselves verifiable facts regarding the show and the audience? 173.71.171.58 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What individual viewers say about the show is irrelevant; what we care about is what established critics in reliable sources say about the series. If most critics in reliable sources gave it negative feedback, that is what the article should show. If you have a reliable anime-related or other website that praised it, you are more than welcome to add it. I noticed you just added an "Asian Movie Pulse" website, however this doesn't look like a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The "controversy" section has been subject to edit wars, and it's easy to understand why - the critics comments are speculative about the audience and intentionally inflammatory in nature. While the opinion of "individual viewers" is irrelevant, the aggregate review of hundreds of thousands of viewers is a relevant fact, especially when it is in such clear contrast to the critics here, whose opinions are presented without the slightest pretense of balance. A casual reader who finds this wikipedia page would have no idea that this anime is actually quite popular among viewers - if you Browse Crunchyroll by Popularity, it is currently ranked number 30, just after Naruto and Bleach.

Furthermore, you reverted the edit so quickly that I must wonder if you did any due diligence on the reliability of the source. They have existed since September 2015. They have dozens of writers on multiple continents. They have seven sponsorships. They review a wide range of content, including not just anime but manga and books. The LinkedIn page for this particular author of the review shows at least six years of experience in the industry and that he is a staff writer for several other publications. Please elaborate on how this source is unreliable. 173.71.171.58 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the Reliable Resources links you provided. Comic Book Resources is listed by neither of those sources. Using your own criteria, the entire quote from CBR should be removed.