Jump to content
question

Has PI received critical acclaim?


Thomas P

Featured Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Phoenix
37 minutes ago, Torturo said:

yes it did, only "negative" review is one written by britney stan for guardian, everyone else praised it

drag

 

the one that haters cling onto lmao

💎
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas P

K so wiki updated to polarized reviews.

I’m a simple guy to please, if you like Melodrama, we chill.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lona Delery
28 minutes ago, TylerBR97 said:

Wikipedia is 95% accurate and that's a fact. I hate when professors say it's not reliable :madge: It is. Don't believe what those other pieces of **** say. Every single thing added to Wikipedia needs to be backed up by sources. So it's pretty accurate.

Not really, I read so much crap on Wiki already that didnt have a source. The English version is quite unreliable

Sometimes it feels like I've got a war in my mind, I wanna get off but I keep riding the ride
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lextyr97
2 minutes ago, Lona Delery said:

Not really, I read so much crap on Wiki already that didnt have a source. The English version is quite unreliable

Idk it's my go to for essays and I have yet to be faulted for it lmfao. I just put that I got it from somewhere else

Link to post
Share on other sites

Togekiss
49 minutes ago, Torturo said:

yes it did, only "negative" review is one written by britney stan for guardian, everyone else praised it

I unfortunately read the pitchfork "review" in the form of a 'convo' as the author put it.

It was so full of pretentious garbage like: "the key change was unearned":saladga:

My eyes almost rolled out of my head.

building a daydream
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorcerer
8 minutes ago, Thomas P said:

K so wiki updated to polarized reviews.

Why did PI receive "polarized" reviews? In wiki, there are only three negative reviews. OMG. :awkney:

Link to post
Share on other sites

venusfly
2 minutes ago, Camore said:

Why did PI receive "polarized" reviews? In wiki, there are only three negative reviews. OMG. :awkney:

The article is still being edited and things will change about until editors can come to a concensus and more reviews come in, its usualy unstable in the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Supersonic said:

The only outlets that criticized it were Pitchfork & The Guardian (The review from the Guardian was a mess though because the journalist is an obvious Britney Spears stan, criticized Gaga's vocal performance and lauded Britney's on Glory)

Outlets that have reviewed positively were:

New York Post
NME
LA Times
Digital Spy

All of those previously dragged Gaga.

Other positives were from:

The Daily Telegraph
Billboard
Idolator
The Independant
The Needle Drop
 

Nice! Waiting for the retroactive acclaim.

NME... sistren...

3 points in and ready for more
Link to post
Share on other sites

sipthistea
2 minutes ago, Miel said:

Nice! Waiting for the retroactive acclaim.

NME... sistren...

Right? I thought NME was going to be like " This is Gaga's most pretentious first single"

Like they did with BTW.  :madge:

Link to post
Share on other sites

RadioIsOurs
16 minutes ago, Thomas P said:

K so wiki updated to polarized reviews.

Watch as he who shall not be named changes his mind about Wiki being 95% accurate :reductive:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorcerer
8 minutes ago, Azor Ahai said:

Wikpedia article at this moment:

OjgBmZb.png

OMG! GENERALLY POSITIVE REVIEWS.:diane::rockstar:

Thank you for the person who raised the "polarized review" issue in Wikipedia Talk page. There are some positive reviews still not recognized in Wikipedia, tho. WAITING FOR THAT CRITICAL ACCLAIM.

EDIT: They changed it to mixed. :grr:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...