This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Bias selection of reviews and too US focused.[edit]
First: Please correct - this film was given 4 stars by the Guardian. Not 3, as stated in this piece.
Overall, this description preferences American outlets. ie. The Times UK ‘fascinating’. The Age Aus ‘superb’ 4 stars, the sydney morning herald 4 stars, financial times UK ‘ a fascinating in-depth study of assange’. These are just a few. Additionally, this description of Ithaka fails to cite any festivals/ awards that the film has won or been nominated for ie. walkley awards, amnesty international award, AACTA, docnyc international competition, doc edge festival best film, best international director, Sheffield docfest, sydney film festival. My impression is that this description of Ithaka was written to give the ‘impression’ of impartiality but, is nothing more than a bias selection of quotes - hoping to undercut the fil. The film remains at 85 on RT. Please balance this description to better reflect the reception to this film. 60.241.59.36 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and for a page that is not protected from editing, please feel free to be WP:BOLD and incorporate any of the changes that you have brought up. They seem to have merit and would be welcome additions! -2pou (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the number of stars is a fast update, I was going to take care of that, but if you click the link, it literally has 3 stars highlighted out of five. Perhaps there was a second review published by the Guardian? If so, when you add it, please include the reference. Regarding the current sourcing, it's possible that the editor just did enough sourcing to satisfy the notability requirements to have an article and then moved onto a new subject, so your recommendations are welcome to keep the article more current. Asking other people to incorporate the additions may not work though... I myself am too lazy to dig deep into them and then incorporate them since I have nothing vested in the article... 2pou (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has several awards mentioned, like you say The Guardian gave it three stars not four, and WP:ROTTEN#Limitations says if Rotten Tomatoes has a sample of 10 reviews for an independent film, the sample is not large enough for the score to be statistically accurate so we cant use it for Ithaka. If theres more RS they should be added Softlemonades (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
