Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I think the source is fine, but the entry text doesn't make a good case for it as an example. What is the unfortunate implication supposed to be? "Falls very flat" just sounds like complaining.
TBH I don't if we should consider a single internet critic a source for this trope. Especially from one formerly from CA since a lot of them are known for Caustic Critic tendencies where they go extra hard on things for entertainment value.
It's the same reason there was some debate about the persistent linking of The Nostalgia Critic on So Bad Its Horrible
Edited by CryptidProductions
I think JesuOtaku is fine as a source, all her reviews are analytical much more than making jokes. However I recall the video review was rather vague as to the problems, saying it was sexist without specifying how (though it was made very clear this had nothing to do with the sexualisation). Did she set out the problems more clearly elsewhere?
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
(just to add that JO is a trans man with male pronouns)
Would a internet personality who does review be seen as credible enough for a source?
I found this in the YMMV.Witchblade on the anime section.