Because the critical reception is not a part of the work itself. A review could mention those aspects, and any troper can write a review for any work, but "does poorly" is pretty much Sturgeon's Law in action.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.But it provides context to the work, and shouldn't that mean something?
There are a few YMMV (and maybe Trivia) tropes that could fit. But as far as looking for patterns used within media, it's tangental at best. Critical reception has nothing to do with storytelling.
Check out my fanfiction!Not the first time this kind of question has been asked. It won't be the last.
edited 10th Nov '15 11:04:35 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)deleted post, disregard
edited 14th Nov '15 5:05:13 AM by gallium
By and large the main problem with including critical and commercial reception in the main article is that it often skews toward personal opinions of the quality rather than general observations of how it was received.
I've found some articles improved by heading off those kind of complaints by including some form of critical reception in the manner of describing some outside context. Like in the Arrow page as a lead in to describe the development of the Arrowverse.
I can understand not allowing critical reception in pages like fanfic and stuff, 'cause most fanfics aren't well-known enough to get any sort of critical reception, and it'll just invite bashing. But in wide-released, mainstream movies? Brother Bear, for example, had its middling critical reception removed a couple of months ago, and I don't get why. The film's critical reception is important, not only to provide real-world context, but to give an idea of related aspects (i.e., "Why haven't I heard of this flick before? Why does Disney never talk about it?") and so on and so forth.
edited 10th Nov '15 4:37:25 AM by YasminPerry