Talk:The Playground (film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Playground (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WP:NFILM
edit2 critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, bare minimum for WP:NFILM. Filmforme (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a continued discussion I had with @S0091, moved to this talk page.
I have asked around and besides being marked early as a promising draft with distribution by Indie Rights,[1] Richard Propes and Don Shanahan are both Tomatometer-approved critics at Rotten Tomatoes.[2] They have left full-length reviews on this film and this should qualify the draft being moved to article space as per WP:NFO attribute number 1 "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." If this attribute does not make a case for this draft becoming an article, please explain why so I know this was not overlooked.
References
It appears every previous decline was before this film had a 2nd review added to Rotten Tomatoes (which was only added last month while the last decline was in May). I believe this article would survive AfD because I have found that Contest (2013 film) and Warning Shot (2018 film) have had recent proposed deletions removed because of WP:NFO attribute 1 listed above.
It is clear that when @ReaderofthePack mentioned Don Shanahan's review in their first comment on the draft, they were unable to identify it as a Rotten Tomato review at that time. Although the review is from 2016, it was not displayed on Rotten Tomatoes until July 12, 2022. That alone may change their decision as well as the decisions of previous comments by users @Sulfurboy @Domdeparis @Bonadea @Mako001 @Kaleeb18 @Onmyway22. Because we rely on their consideration, I would like to give them one final opportunity to speak in light of this new crucial information. Filmforme (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think I agree with the other editors and S0091 still. I also like to go by WP:THREE, though not a policy, and I am not really seeing that. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 22:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can see going with WP:THREE here. I'm just a little concerned that the reviews wouldn't hold up on AfD. I like going by RT, but not everyone sees the reviews there as automatically reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the follow up replies @Kaleeb18 and @ReaderofthePack. The new information is really helpful. I have to ask if Shanahan's site being labeled as a blog is hurting the credibility of that source, despite being individually approved by Rotten Tomatoes?
- I like five of the sources, but I have narrowed it down to the best three in my opinion.
- Things to consider-
- In addition to both Rotten Tomatoes reviews by critics Propes and Shanahan, I kept the source KPBS Public Media for two reasons:
- 1) KPBS is a Google News source.[1]
- 2) While the citation is not a review, the author Beth Accomando is also a Tomatometer-approved critic at Rotten Tomatoes,[2] and publishes their opinions on KPBS.[3]
- There you have it. All three authors of each source are individually approved by Rotten Tomatoes. While I do understand not everyone may agree they are reliable, given Rotten Tomatoes' eligibility guidelines for an individual critic application,[4] it's pretty tough to argue against.
References