Thread:Stryzzar/@comment-1037137-20141017070841/@comment-27329394-20141026052039

Just posted this big wall of text of his/her wall trying to convince him/her to reconsider the edit. Hope it works...

I apologize for hastily deleting the reception sections of many of the seasons, but at the same time, I must ask why they remain there, uncited for so many years. Ever since the first time I have viewed the page, they have been uncited with some occasional additions that are still uncited and, quite frankly, this isn't a good way of having a critical reception section.

With the exception of TDI, the sections all rely too heavily on fan reception and user reviews on various sites, which is not a reliable source. From my knowledge of the show's reviews, the only ones that I have seen are two reviews of the DVD of Total Drama Island and a negative review from "The Age" that appears to no longer exist, and I have seen no other sources. But a lack of critical reviews should not mean that we need to resort to fan opinion to determine the critical reception section. Metacritic user reviews, IMBd, TV.com, and I think even Common Sense Media are determined solely by users and that is not a source I see outside of this page. The fact that specific events that within the show are mentioned really shows that the reviews are heavily biased towards the fan opinion. An example that REALLY stands out to me is this, from the World Tour section:

"However, some events of the season were severely criticized, such as the over-use of popular characters like Owen and Duncan getting more screen time and the under-use of characters like Noah and Tyler who were booted off early."

This is a clearly opinionated. Overuse of "popular" characters? Why would they not use a popular character, and if the critics recognized this why would they think this is a bad idea? Underuse of characters like Tyler and Noah? I doubt that, even if there was a review that existed which there does not seem to be, that this would not actually happen. They would care more about what they got, not who was "overused" or who had potential, which something that is more of a subjective opinion in the fanbase. Speaking of this, why is everything coincidentally something that the fanbase focuses on so much? This is more of a petty issue that a critic would not go with. Issues such as "Gwen and Courtney's friendship being ruined again" from the overall TD section, "overuse of season four characters" from the overall TD section, "Ezekiel being the first one kicked off" are also things that a critic couldn't care less about that but the fandom got worked up about. There is no way that a critical review would mention how they expected more out of Ezekiel because of the format of it. Notice how the critical reviews of Regular Show and Adventure Time will talk about the fundamentals of the show as a whole, not something like the elimination order or, well, utilization of characters. They also mention specific sites with specific names, which only one review of TDI does. They also talk about the concept of the show as a whole, the way all the characters are handled, and how they go through all existent plotlines, not the specfic plotlines they go through and how utilized characters are. Any awards the show gets are specifically mentioned where they got it and in what section and if they won. All sections of Total Drama do not do this.

As a side note, the rewards Total Drama World Tour won are unspecified for their location and the fact that it mentioned "many other rewards" particularly irks me as well. What are these other rewards? Or is this another assumption?

This brings me to the assumption that there is no actual critic reviews for any season past TDI, and the lack of citations for so many years and my aforementioned reasons only seems to back up my claim. Even if they did happen, why is reception for season five being removed when it has exactly as many citations (zero) as all the other seasons? I understand that having a link to Tumblr is dumb and should not happen, but everything else seems to already be assuming that critics felt the same exact way as the fanbase, so... yeah. All I'm wondering is why this reception remains the way it is for so many years, and if nothing is being done about it, why it is a bad idea to try to remove unsupported and potentially false information.

Thank you for your time.

Swampertman (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)