Talk:Blooded (film)

"Documentary" nature

I don't think this draft about a still-obscure film sufficiently addresses the fact that the makers of the movie are (I believe) still pretending that it's a documentary, rather than a virally-marketed horror film. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but the numerous reliable sources now included in the draft article show the film as meeting WP:NF. Your believing it is an obscure film not-with-standing, a film's notability is found through WP:GNG, and not dimished because any one editor feels it obscure. No doubt we have many article on Wikipedia on topics that you or I have never heard of, but as long as the subject meets inclusion criteria, any personal perception of "obscurity" is moot. What you may have missed in your visit, is that the article now specifically includes sourced information of the filmmaker explaining that it is NOT a real-life documentary... so no, the filmmaker is no longer pretending, as it is now on record that the film is not a real documentary. Contextual expansion also includes sourcing specifically addressing that the fake animal rights group was all part of the production company's marketing campaign.[1][2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Release date

I see in this recent cite that the although the film was shown at the film festival that the release date is actually April fools day - "Blooded is released on April 1." Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As the article and sources indicate, March 18 was the festival debut, April 1 is a date for limited release in theaters and the internet, and April 4 is the DVD release date. When sources write of festival screenings, it is commmonplace that they inlude the date(s) of general and/or DVD release, if known. There is no conflict. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

Article incubation assessment

1. Does the article establish notability of the subject ?

   A. It meets the general notability guideline:

   B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:

2. Is it verifiable?

   A. It contains references to sources:

   B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. There is no original research:

3. Is it neutral?

   A. It is a fair representation without bias:

   B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:

4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
5. Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

Article has reliable sources which meet verification policy and appropriate notability guidelines. The article could do with development in some areas, such as building the lead per WP:Lead, but clearly meets nearly all Wikipedia inclusion requirements. The two areas that might need some attention just to be sure, are sourcing some of the statements in the Background section - there is a quote from Edward Boase that needs a close inline cite, and either sourcing, removing or refactoring statements that appear to be opinion, such as "The fake website was convincing enough that it actually duped the actual Animal Liberation Front." Conventionally plots are not sourced, however it would be helpful to find, if possible, a source (such as a review) which gives a summary of the plot and cite that in the Synopsis section. A bit more copy editing would help as well. Ping me when the above has been done. SilkTork *^YES! 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues have been addressed and the article has been cleaned up and appropriately sourced. I have moved it into mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Blooded (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326025848/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23934413-oh-deer-heiress-tells-of-harrowing-film-role-as-the-quarry-of-hunt-extremists.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23934413-oh-deer-heiress-tells-of-harrowing-film-role-as-the-quarry-of-hunt-extremists.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721081748/http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/blog/grass-roots-blooded-14601 to http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/blog/grass-roots-blooded-14601
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714153503/http://www.napiersnews.com/2011/03/revolver-entertainment-presents-blooded.html to http://www.napiersnews.com/2011/03/revolver-entertainment-presents-blooded.html

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) 01:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)