Talk:Batwoman (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Batwoman (TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The amount of dislikes and negative comments/reactions that this show's trailer got is crazy. That should be mentioned in the Marketing section where it is stated that the trailer was released. --ForkInThePath (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just added it. Peppapig123456 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously a targeted troll campaign same as for Captain Marvel. Why give misogynist trolls credence? Jmj713 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not about giving credence to anyone. It is about stating what happened. It is objectively true that the trailer was not well received. And you're also just assuming that it is a targeted troll campaign. Ever considered that it might be people who actually dislike the trailer? Same thing happened with the Sonic trailer.ForkInThePath (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was a targeted troll campaign or not. It still shows the negative reaction it got on YouTube. Peppapig123456 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Then it needs to be contextualized like with Captain Marvel (film)#Audience response. Jmj713 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You only need context to explain the negative reaction, but not to confirm that there is one. But if you want context, you can summarize the negative comments posted on the video source by the general public, which could be summarized as "criticism for perceived misandry, feminist hypocrisy, and social propaganda", and such. This page cannot subjectively give credence nor accusations for opinions, but should still objectively describe those opinions. 98.248.88.165 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have (unfortunately) read many of the comments on YouTube and they are in no conceivable way legitimate criticisms of anything in the trailer itself. The vast majority of comments are purposefully anti-feminist, homophobic, and misogynistic. This is a statement of fact, not opinion. So yes, mainly a troll campaign, just like with Captain Marvel and Rotten Tomatoes. It's a way to "punish" the trailer for perceived "social wrongs". If a reasonable good-faith commentator (non-troll) who didn't like the trailer and clicked the thumbs-down, that person wouldn't then leave a comment such as "the Batcave would be perfect once it's a kitchen". Jmj713 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you're either not reading enough comments, or you're purposefully selecting the more antagonistic ones to easily discredit them. Second of all, you're denying the obvious connection of the comments to the message of the video. Specifically the encouragement to depreciate a rightfully important male character, and the misandry and hypocrisy of doing so. In addition, your "kitchen" example was a counter to the "once it fits a woman" quote, and by extension, the "woman" theme that's echoed throughout the trailer. And third, you're also disregarding the YouTube commentators who posted their own videos to criticize the trailer. Not only are many of these commentators women themselves, and not only do they explain ad infinitum their ire to the trailer, but they also explained why such alleged misogyny doesn't ever happen to other much more popular female lead characters.

So until the motivations of negative comments are more properly investigated, any accusation of review bombing and troll campaigning is invalid. 98.248.88.165 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jmj713 Let's say (for the sake of argument) that everyone who commented on the Batwoman trailer video on YouTube also disliked the video, this is most definitely not true, but let's pretend that it is. Currently, the video has about 330,000 dislikes, 72,000 likes, and 87,782 comments. 330,000 subtracted by 87,782 is 242,218. 242,218 is still much more than 72,000. So that leaves you with 242,218 people whose motivations you do not know because they did not comment on the video. @Jmj713's whole argument for adding the "context" of it being a troll campaign was based on the comments, but from our previous arithmetic we just found that there is a huge chunk of people whose comments we do not know. Thus we cannot say that the vast majority of people's motivation for disliking the video was due to them being a part of a troll campaign. Also, no one gets to decide what "legitimate criticisms" are, people have can criticize art for any reason, you may not agree with their reasons, but it does not mean that their criticisms are not legit. Additionally, YouTube is not Wikipedia, there are no "good-faith commentators". There are just commentators. Whether their comments are good or not good is all subjective. Comments can be anti-feminist and still be seen as legitimate gripes by some people. It should not be a Wikipedia article's job to determine which comments on a YouTube video are legitimate and which ones are not. @Jmj713's previous change was based totally on subjectivity rather than objectivity. -ForkInThePath (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is sourced context for the dislikes statements being removed? Feel free to reword it if need be, but it’s an important detail. Jmj713 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your source was a pretty shabby one. It claims that there are "YouTube trolls" but gives no evidence of it other than using 4 comments as "evidence". Again, whether a comment on the BatWoman trailer is just a troll or a legit criticism of the trailer is incredibly subjective. Not objective. ForkInThePath (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s not for us to decide, we just state what reliable sources state and i provided two. Jmj713 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Batwoman(U.S. TV series). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Should't be mentioned that audience score is only 8% on Rotten tomatoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.197.45 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable secondary source mentions it. Users scores are on the same level as Letters to the Editor and are not noteworthy or reliable in-and-of-themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

More comment-bombing by trolls, repeating the same misogynist comments they did on YouTube for the initial trailer. Jmj713 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION which it states: Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. In the case of the general public, we use ratings to determine the popularity of a show, as it would be extremely difficult to find an accurate representation of fan opinion. This means that IMDb, TV.com, and similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information. Also, see WP:UGC. The audience score is a "fan poll". The general audiences are not professional reviewers. User-based ratings are not appropriate to use on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This is funny ....as i remmember when wiki itself was criticised as not reliable becouse it's not created by profesionals. Aniway....i don't wanna lose much time...but if you don't understand that cummulative opinion of ten's of thousands people is much much much much much more relevant that opinion of few biased profesionals then i can't help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.197.45 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The opinions of a small number of right leaning people review bombing the series because they think its too sjw means very little unless there's actual notable media coverage on the matter. Wikipedia by its very nature has to remain neutral. Esuka (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

cbr.com is not good enough? [1] Kamamura (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Note the word "notable". One article is barely notable. And it admits that the series is being review bombed, thus that the audience reviews are barely worth nothing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So "notable" is the excuse word you are using to skewer the facts to your liking, eh? There is a huge, staggering number of fans that are unhappy about what is going on with Marvel Comics, and Marvel Univers, Star Wars, and other established franchises. Here in Europe, there is basically nobody who would not consider the current extremist Hollywood feminist propaganda insane. Yet you think you can just "erase" those "inconvenient", but provably existing opinion trends by pretending they do not exist and that anyone who reports about them is "not notable enough"? Pathetic. Kamamura (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC}

Pretty astounding self-confidence to believe you can speak for a whole continent. Here's the thing - you don't. Just as a handful of people (in percentage terms) leaving reviews don't speak for the whole audience.AutumnKing (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Extremist Hollywood feminist propaganda"? So your POV and bias is clear. But editors should strive for objectivity. And maybe try not seeing an "agenda" in anything that happens to star a woman. Women make up the majority of humans. Jmj713 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You're supposed to leave your own opinions at the door when covering subject matters like this on Wikipedia and remain entirely neutral. By the sound of your post you have come here with an agenda to push. Esuka (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And this, once such is recognized, could possibly be corrected, thus making the rating outdated anyway--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup. They were already rating the show poorly before it even premiered on The CW. I would imagine most of them haven't even seen the show but are doing so because of the trailer. Esuka (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you preach that, while simultaneously painting 92% of Rotten Tomato users as "small amount of right-leaning trolls whose opinion is not notable enough". Congratulations on refuting yourself. In the end, the success of a franchise or a movie is measured by the popularity earned by viewers, not by paid reviews from journalists on publishers' payrolls. Kamamura (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think 4107 is 92% of Rotten Tomatoes users. Also, it's less than 1% of 1.86 million, so "small amount" is the correct description for that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s also not implausible that they would go so far as to operate multiple accounts to help the bombing--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to assume. If there was to be an audience response section it would need to be handled the same way as Captain Marvel(Which was also review bombed). When there's enough reliable sources covering points which need to be covered someone could probably attempt this. I don't believe there's any real need at present though. Esuka (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please learn some maths. Ten thousand out of one million is about 1%. Which is to say that any user score based on that sampling size has about a 1% accuracy in representing the total audience. Making it tens of thousands won't make it any more accurate than 10%. That's way below the confidence level required for a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Whoever is not admitting that it has been reviewbombed by trolls and outraged guys, who by default didn't want to enjoy it and want to manipulate the RT score, is being ignorant because they themselves feel as part of that group:

• Arrow S1: 2342 "audience" reviews | Ep. 1 out since 2012
• Flash S1: 4927 AR | Ep. 1 out since 2014
• Supergirl S1: 3247 AR | Ep. 1 out since 2015
• Legends S1: 1346 AR | Ep. 1 out since 2016
• Black Lightning S1: 2294 AR | Ep. 1 out since 2018
• Batwoman S1: 7272(!) AR | Ep. 1 out since not even 2(!) months
• Constantine S1: 37(!) AR | Ep. 1 out since 2014

You see that uneven disparity and reviewnumbers? Now if I wanted to go even further and compare this to ratings, VoD availability, home media sales, i'd make an even stronger case, but this should be enough. So yeah, idc about this show and prob won't see it except for the crossover, but whoever denies the reviewbombs is doing it for their own agenda (whatever it might be). Also why does Kamamura bring up "russian alt right trolls" down below as like anybody here even brought the terms "alt-right" and "russian" into this discussion, even though it was that user himself? Trying to frame the opposing discussers into something they didn't claim? Nice. --H8149 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The audience scores on rotten tomatoes are never notable.. especially for tv series... as very few people actually bother to post reviews of television shows on there and those that do have an agenda. Spanneraol (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The sharply declining viewer number of the show prove that explaining the poor user score as "Russian Alt Right Trolls" is both a blatant lie and a pathetic attempt to deny the obvious - that by "transgendering" yet another traditional hero, the SJW trolls have destroyed/defaced yet another beloved franchise and loyal, real fans of the Batman franchise, those thousand times more relevant than some tired journalist hack clapping hands for alms, are reacting as expected - by anger, frustration, and finally by stopping care about the now dead franchise. It happened to Game of Thrones, it happened to Star Wars, and it will happen to other vandalized traditional franchises as well, no matter how hard you try, and no matter how much you lie.Kamamura (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Please cite a reliable secondary source stating any of that so that we can include it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If you really were such a loyal Batman franchise fan, then you would know who Kate Kane is. Jmj713 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What sharply declining numbers? The show is doing just fine. The second episode was within 1000 viewers of adjusting up to a 0.4(Had a 0.349 demo unrounded) and compared to other shows on the network its one of the better performing ones. You are imagining things which simply aren't there if you believe the show is underperforming, as its normal for any show to drop after premiering. As long as the show remains stable it'll be renewed along with the other Arrowverse shows. Esuka (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You sir, outed yourself as an anti-SJW alt-right troll who’s willing to pretend that a movie that made a billion dollars starring a woman you don’t like is “failing”--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

He also seems to be unaware that broadcast & cable networks don't care about total viewer numbers and have never renewed based on them either. Traditional non Premium networks make their money based on how many viewers in the 18-49 demo are watching something. Which would be the C3 & C7 numbers. Esuka (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

And calling the Arrowverse a now dead franchise? Just as laughable. Crisis is gonna shake shit up considerably, just like the death of Iron Man does for the MCU. Arrow may be ending, but Batwoman just started, a new spinoff is filming, and Legends is about to get new blood. But he doesn’t really care, he’s just enraged that he’s not getting another live action TV show about the sacred cow that is Bruce Wayne. Now, I have no idea if this pre-Elseworlds set story is going to take up the entire season, but I honestly can’t see it doing so because there would be too much time taken to even catch up to Crisis, but I have a feeling things are going to get interesting. Supergirl’s best season was not the first, and neither was Legends’s. But it’s gonna feel real different, real fast.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Who care if some franshcise is failing or not....this is ( pretend to be ) encyclopedia...and all it need to do is list cold fact so..reader of wiki should have real information so he can have his own conclusion. In this case user score on rotten tomatoes ..which is very low oposed from officialy critic...nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.119 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The user rating on Rotten Tomatoes is based on poor sampling. Basing any kind of analysis on that is poor science. So unless you publish your analysis in a reliable source, or cite such an analysis in a reliable source, your statements hold little weight. DonQuixote (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

DonQuiote...i realy don't want to talk about sampling with you....as you think that sample of 4k from 1,86M set is not big enought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.86.148 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think 4k is big enough to iron out the self-selection bias inherent in there being no oversight in Rotten Tomatoes' user scores. If you can show otherwise, go right ahead (citing a reliable source might be helpful). DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The viewership numbers are just fine.. it remains the second highest rated show on the CW after Flash. Spanneraol (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Television ratings have been declining yearly since forever and what we're seeing now is just a natural decline which is evident on every network. With the CW most of their lineup is under 1 million viewers with either a 0.1 or a 0.2 18-49 demo. There's only a few shows that are doing better. Esuka (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Btw. sample in meanwhile raised on 7,2k...and user score is still very very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.56 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You should view this: Bayes theorem, and making probability intuitive . It'll help explain why 7k is still too small. DonQuixote (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence characterizing the show as a "superhero series" is highly biased. Given that the main character is a radical far-left homosexual who loudly promotes so-called "social justice," many would regard this as a supervillain show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevybuild (talk • contribs) 13:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on showing your bias!--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the Batwoman is not just lesbian, she is also a Jew.([2]) On the other hand, the super-villain Alice is her twin sister, so she is also a Jew. Can you cope with this? IKhitron (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• isn't promoting social justice something heroes would do? Nothing on the show has presented her as "radical far-left" either.Spanneraol (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Superheroes are social justice warriors as much as they are criminal justice warriors--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think this talkpage needs an auto archive feature added and we all just agree to ignore posts like this in the future. Talkpages are supposed to be about improvements to the article, not for antifans to rant about a show they don't agree with. Batwoman simply isn't going to canceled and It'd be better if this talkpage wasn't filled with topics like this one which don't accomplish anything. Esuka (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I’d be all for NotAForum-ing and reverting any comments that pop up of that ilk--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As per IJBall, I went ahead and removed the section as per WP:FANCRUFT. Let's figure out who's actually notable and can be listed there. Amaury • 16:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that we can determine what cast to remove without blank-removing the entire section. Certainly, we can remove the COIE crossover cast; I've already suggested that at another talk page. I would recommend keeping characters that are either an adaptation of a comics character (e.g. Julia Pennyworth, Magpie, etc.) or related to a comics character (e.g. Duela Dent). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alex 21 that blanking is not the way to go... especially when there's already a maintenance tag calling for its attention.

• I think we should give priority to DC Comics characters, followed by significant characters.
• There are some obvious entries who can be easily removed such as all/most of the unnamed characters and random victims.
• Some of them are also overly detailed. For example, Parker Torres was in only one episode but gets a description longer than all the main characters.— Starforce¹³ 01:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• How bout creating a characters page like the other shows have? Seems like the list is big enough to spin off. Spanneraol (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought about a spinoff page but there aren't enough noteworthy characters to spinoff. We'll probably have enough by the end of s2. So far the list is flooded with unnamed or minor characters who don't even play any notable role in the plot. Otherwise, if we list all the guest stars like this, every show would have a spinoff list of characters page. — Starforce¹³ 02:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Draft:List of Batwoman characters, but agree that it's too soon. - Brojam (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We should keep the draft in it's draft mode until season two airs. We did have to wait for the second season of Black Lightning to air before adding the character page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the guests from spinoffs like Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, and DC Legends of Tomorrow should stay, but that all these one shot guest characters have to go unless they are recurring. That should clean up the mess we have in that Guest Star Catagory. Maxcardun (talk 10:09 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Drama really necessary to include in the infobox? With Mystery and Crime already included in there, it's pretty obvious that this is more dramatic then comical. Also, isn't action redundant with Superhero? While as far as I know, there's no specific guideline on how many genres should be included in the infobox, 5 just seems like too many to me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if we could avoid using broken bracket links like [[#epX|]] with nothing between the pipe and the end brackets, even if it's in code that's commented out. this makes it harder to find the real errors with searches like this one. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TABLECAPTION: these are required site- (and Web-)wide. Please do not remove them, as it is hostile to users without vision. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines are recommended, never required. I see no policy stating so. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, Please show me which policy states that guidelines are recommend, never required. See also Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays, where I have referred you before. Why are you removing table captions when the MOS is very explicit about this and it's a basic accessibility feature for the blind? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the very definition of a guideline - to recommend how to do something; guidelines are common practices. You are edit-warring, against multiple editors mind you, over content that you have no requirement to implement. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, So I'll assume that you have none and I'll do your work for you: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says that policies "should normally be followed" (not always) and editors "should attempt to follow guidelines". Neither of them are "always required" but both are based on consensus. Since, as you know there was a recent RfC on this (which you chose to ignore) and overwhelming support for requiring table captions, you are defying consensus by removing this. Again, I'll ask you: Why are you removing table captions when the MOS is very explicit about this and it's a basic accessibility feature for the blind? Failing any good reason (you have given none), then Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines makes it clear that you should adhere to the MOS and WP:ACCESSIBLE. Please answer the question and tell us the very good reason why this table should not have a caption and so should go against the common sense consensus guideline that I have offered and which you already knew about before removing it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see this was linked to, but what Koavf is basing this on is the result of the recent RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#RfC on table captions which is a guideline that is established as part of the Wikimedia Foundation nondiscrimination resolution policy. The arguments in the RfC about aesthetics and redundancy were raised and were outweigh by the accessibility factor. --Gonnym (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, Thank you: I should have linked the RfC for third parties. The above user knows full well about it, per User_talk:Koavf#May_2020. He even hilariously pointed out how he plans on subverting consensus because, "hey, it's just a guideline, so who cares about the blind!" I'm assuming good faith on the part of the other user who removed it and posted what I hope is a respectful message on his talk. I have a harder time assuming good faith on this user's part because of his hostile and disrespectful attitude on my talk. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Christie is not actually playing Bruce Wayne.. he is playing Tommy Elliott disguised as Bruce Wayne... so I dont really think labeling him as playing Bruce and Batman is accurate here. Spanneraol (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reformatted it to be a sub listing of Elliot and reworded it accurately I felt. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's better. If they ever bring him in as the real Bruce it can be put back in. Spanneraol (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. If Christie plays the "actual" Bruce down the line, he should get his own bullet and the description about being Kate's cousin etc. That didn't apply to Elliot so I felt what I went with worked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Claiming Christie is Bruce Wayne/Batman is misleading right now because a disguise of disguise is not the real Bruce Wayne/Batman as of the season 1 finale. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

YoungForever, the real Bruce as portrayed by Christie appears on a magazine cover, so can that help in any way? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: That's doesn't mean much because for all we know Christie could be in disguise as Bruce in the magazine. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What? How? Tommy Elliot obviously didn't do a photo shoot disguised as Bruce. Caivu (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, at this time that isn't really relevant until Christie actually performs as the actual Bruce in an episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Found these links for those that are interested in updating the critical response, I am giving up watching the show, taking this off my watchlist as can I can't stand the show now, heh. Govvy (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• guardian.com
• screenrant.com
• theverge.com

Why not add them yourself? Or better yet, don't, since you seem to have cherry-picked two negative reviews and one that isn't even a review to start with. Caivu (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)