Talk:Opie Gets Laid

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Articles for creation

	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 was accepted on 10 September 2009 by reviewer SparksBoy (talk · contribs).

critic David Walker

Although David Walker is the creator of BadAzz MoFo, is a nationally published film critic, and the Writer/Director of Black Santa's Revenge, it his review of the film on DVD Talk that shows coverage. Who wrote a review at an accepted genre RS is not the issue, as any notability stems from the site itself, and through their editoral practices. I have removed Mr. Walker's name from the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course who writes a review is relevant. No, David Walker is not a professional critic. Yes, David Walker does operate a self-published website. You say he is "nationally published"... the implication being that he has been published in a WP:reliable source. Could you please cite that source? Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to for me to come up with the reviewer's pedigee, as it is just as who writes a review is irrelevant. But your inserting a personal opinion about a reviewer as if fact is WP:POV and WP:OR, is even more irrelevent and not helpful to the article. As independent films rarely get the press as do highly touted, big budget, studio blockbusters, guideline allows consideration of lesser reviews in context to what is being sourced. What is neutral is to share what these others opine, without editorializing on the author offering his opinion. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the claim the David Walker is "a nationally published film critic" was false. Dlabtot (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your unfounded claim that his is not is what is false, or at least unsupported. Had you actually looked at the review by him on DVD Talk, you'd have seen that blub down at the bottom of the page that describes his background and includes the phrase "nationally published film critic". I did not create it, nor use it in the article. One might consider that with DVD Talk being available nationally, the 406 reviews he wrote for them would then qualify as nationally published film critiques... specially as their use of the term does not demand being a reviewer for New York Times or such... just national coverage. But again, and as you point out, it is irrelevent. Why are you continuing to ask for a pedigree that is not required? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply asking you to explain your claim that he is "nationally published". Are you really basing that simply on an unsupported assertion on some random website? DVDTalk is a fan website, not an RS. Being bought by some company is irrelevant to our RS guideline. DVDTalk does not have any reputation at all, let alone "a reputation for fact-checking and reliability". Dlabtot (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you took issue with the statement, I tried very carefully to explain that the phrase "David Walker is the creator of BadAzz MoFo, is a nationally published film critic, and the Writer/Director of Black Santa's Revenge" was a statement made elsewhere and even pointed out where could read it for yourself. It does not really matter, and has no bearing on the article, as WP:Film has long found the site DVD Talk to be reliable enough as in context to what is being sourced, and as such their reviews are acceptable to show coverage that meets WP:GNG and WP:NF, your personal opinion aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Dlabtot: And though you did not search it yourself, and even though his pedigree is not the issue... for over six years he was the screen editor and lead film critic for Willamette Week [1][2]. During his time at Willamette Week, Walker created and programmed the Longbaugh Film Festival [3][4]. He also founded Indie Film Journal [5]. And toward his being nationally published film critic, he has contributed to MSN[6], Giant Robot[7], Rap Pages[8], Screenwriter Monthly[9], DVDTalk[10], DVD Journal[11]. He is emminently qualified to opine knowledgably about independent film [12]... and is assuredly no amateur. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

After the outcome of the AfD, which looks to be to keep, can the "External links" section please be cleaned up? We should not have link farms. Just list useful links here so others can cite them as references down the road. Erik (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here are a few of those removed ELs that might offer additional information: JWR review, Film Threat review, It's Just Movies review, The World's Greatest Critic review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opie Gets Laid. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001194147/http://sfist.com/2005/03/06/cinequest_review_sunnyvale.php to http://sfist.com/2005/03/06/cinequest_review_sunnyvale.php

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) 12:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]