Draft talk:The Misguided

Cherry picking tag discussion

The article has been tagged for "cherry picked sources" but I believe this tag may not be appropriate. The article includes:

• The Hollywood Reporter review which offers both praise and criticism (noting the film "has its amusing moments but ultimately seems as aimless as the figures at its center")
• Coverage from established film review publications Cultured Vultures and Cinema Crazed
• Documentation of theatrical distribution through Indie Rights (US) and Umbrella Entertainment (Australia)
• Festival coverage (Lone Star Film Festival)
• Official industry sources about distribution and release

All sources are properly cited and verifiable. The reviews represent the actual published critical coverage of the film rather than selective sourcing. Notably, the Hollywood Reporter's mixed review demonstrates that critical perspectives have not been excluded.

Would appreciate discussion on whether this tag is warranted given the comprehensive and balanced nature of the sources used. Stan1900 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove paid editing template

I formally request removal of the paid editing template from 'The Misguided' draft article. This content was not created or edited for any payment or compensation. The article is based on multiple independent, reliable sources including:

• The Hollywood Reporter's review by Frank Scheck
• Coverage of the Lone Star Film Festival premiere (DFWI)
• Multiple independent critical reviews including:
  • The Hollywood Reporter (established industry publication)
  • Cultured Vultures review by Patrick King
  • Cinema Crazed review by Emilie Black

Additionally, the article includes distribution verification through established companies (Indie Rights and Umbrella Entertainment) and festival screening confirmation. The content maintains a neutral point of view and is supported by verifiable third-party sources. The paid editing template should be removed as these contributions were made independently to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australian films. ~~~~ Stan1900 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to decline

I have expanded the Reception section to include significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, and Film Threat - all established publications with substantial reviews of the film. These sources go beyond passing mentions and provide detailed critical analysis of the film's direction, performances, and themes. This coverage should satisfy WP:NFILM criteria for notability. Could we get another review of the draft with these expanded sources? Stan1900 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)