Talk:King Kelly (film)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. INeverCry 17:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

King kelly (film) → King Kelly (film) – This topic seems to be notable. King Kelly (film) was previously G11 speedied but the article is now written unpromotionally. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted. I do not see how it can be construed as overly promotional: the page factually describes the film, which is clearly notable. Admin INeverCry (talk · contribs) moved it here from King kelly (film) per my request, apparently agreeing with my assessment. I can't view the deleted version, so I don't know how close the current version is to that, but I can rewrite it if that is necessary. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tags...

Apparently you weren't satisfied with my answer to why it shouldn't be speedied, since you just tagbombed it with "fansite", "more footnotes", "recentism", "ref improve", and "unreliable sources". Care to explain why? I'm removing them unless you can actually show a problem with the article. The article is written factually and neutrally, so "fansite" is not applicable. Which specific statements do you have a problem with? Things that need citing are cited inline, so "more footnotes" and "ref improve" aren't applicable. If you see something which you think needs an inline cite, feel free to add "cite needed". "Recentism" makes no sense: it's a film from November 2012, so all the reviews are from November 2012. And as for "unreliable sources", I fail to see how the New York Times, Film Journal International, and Slant Magazine are unreliable. Please reply at Talk:King Kelly (film). -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to explain my viewpoints on why I think those tags applied (I see you removed them without giving a sleeping man time to respond, and have added some more information) at the time of my tagging.
- Fansite
  - The lede is good and fairly neutral, the reception section is where the improvement is needed on this article.
- More footnotes
  - There are a few in-line citations, but more could be better, (I can tag statements with {{Cn}} if you would like me to.)
- Recentism
  - The WP:ORIGINAL data on Rotten Tomatoes is recent as it was when you looked it up and there is no way to accurately maintain those stats.
- Ref improve
  - Once the unreliable sources listed below are filtered out, you have two sources. This could use some improvement.
- Unreliable sources
  - The following sources are considered unreliable.
    - King Kelly info page at SeeThink Films' website
      - WP:SELFSOURCE sites not considered reliable.
    - Official film website
      - WP:SELFSOURCE sites not considered reliable.
    - King Kelly at the Internet Movie Database
      - WP:USERGENERATED sites not considered reliable.
    - Rotten Tomatoes
      - WP:USERGENERATED sites that generates WP:ORIGINAL are not considered reliable.
    - King Kelly: Film Review
      - Blog's are not reliable
  - The following sources are considered reliable.
    - A Rowdy Tale, Told by Cellphone Cameras: ‘King Kelly,’ a Satire of Lust for Internet Fame
    - Film Review: King Kelly
Now you know my reasoning for adding all of those tags and perhaps you can clean the article up some. Thanks for asking. I'm going to re-revert you and add this list to the talk page of the article. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I'll gladly work with you to improve the article. However, your reasoning for these tags seems a bit flawed. I'll break down my reply into separate points for ease of reading.

First off, the official site, the film info page, and IMDb are not being used as references or reliable sources. They are included as external links. Per WP:EL official links are meant to be "provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb, IMDb is generally acceptable as an EL.
The Rotten Tomatoes score given is not the score given by users of the site, but rather the aggregate of professional critical reviews (online reviews from authors that are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations.) RT's critic reviews for this film are listed here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kelly/reviews/, while user reviews are at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kelly/reviews/#type=user. See Wikipedia:Review aggregators for more on this. I also checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response and it says that "All critics" score may be used but not the "Top critics" score. The score cited here is the "all critics" score.
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/king-kelly/6711 is not a blog. Slant does have a blog section but it is located at http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/. According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)/archive1, Slant is reliable. Furthermore, even if it is a blog, WP:NEWSBLOG states that blogs hosted by news organizations can be acceptable if the writers are professionals and opinions are attributed to the writer and not the organization.
Wikipedia:Recentism, as I understand it, does not mean "the information has been acquired recently and may change in the future", which seems to be your interpretation. Rather, it means that an article focuses too much on current or recent information while neglecting historical information. For example, if the article on Atheism only talked about atheism as practiced in the 20th century onward, and didn't also cover further historical information on atheism, that would be recentism. I believe the tag that more accurately describes your interpretation is {{Current}} or a similar template.
I honestly don't see how the reception section is written like a fansite. It factually states RT's critic review aggregate, then quotes two critics, one who gave a positive review and one who gave a negative review. If you have specific ideas on how to make it more neutral, be bold and edit it.
Admittedly, the article should have more sources, but it is still a relatively new page and a work in progress. I'm not sure what statements you would like cited, so please add cn where you feel it is needed.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King Kelly (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]