Talk:Sonicsgate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy violoation[edit]

I have had to remove most of this article as it was a copyright violation from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1499323/plotsummary --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

The section citing critical reviews is just a collection of positive quotes from appears to be sports writers and not film critics, and the reviews are quoted in a style more fitting of a press release for the film than for a Wikipedia article. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC). Chicken Wing is an OKC native. Neutral indeed.[reply]

The review section has hyperlinks that expand full length articles from film critics and reporters. Pete Croatto reviewed Sonicsgate. Pete Croatto is from filmcritic.com. filmcritic.com is a division of AMC(American Movie Classics Company LLC).) Also a full review by the Seattle Times reporter Bob Condotta.

First, if you take a look at other film pages, you'll note that the criticism section isn't just a collection of positive quotes. It's written in paragraph form, and the quotes aren't just the highlights that were likely compiled by someone associated with the film. Secondly, personal attacks won't get you very far. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how pointing out your possible bias in anyway should be perceived as a personal attack. If anything, your questioning of the neutrality is something that should be flagged by wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't think that the fact that the critical reviews are not in paragraph form has any bearing on the content, which is clearly acceptable in the way the section was written. If you have a problem with the fact that it is a list of quotes, then put it into paragraph form so that it is in the manner you deem acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krc82 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule here on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Please read that policy and others if necessary. Now, let's move on from all of that. There's no reason to waste space on pettiness. On the substantive issue -- the potentially biased nature of the reviews section -- I submit that people should look at this page.[1] The review section on the Wikipedia article appears to be largely copied from the official press for the movie. That's not really a good way to go about collecting reviews for the film.
The film, as far as I can tell, doesn't have any reviews listed on aggregation websites like Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic, which also makes it difficult to get an accurate picture of the critical reviews for the film. Movie articles on Wikipedia usually include box office numbers along with the critical reviews in a "reception" section, but I was also unable to find such information on IMDb or Box Office Mojo. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to "assume good faith Chicken Wing is in no position to talk. He has been shown time and again to have a COI in any articles relating to the Seattle Sonics since OKC entered the picture. He has never been interested in neutral point of view but in disrupting anything that didn't portray the OKC spin on the issue. He was asked on multiple occasions to refrain from editing articles relating to this issue and should be excluded from this article because of his COI because of his relationship with Clay Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.194.4 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't clutter this talk page with a response to that obviously false personal attack. If, for some reason though, another editor comes along and thinks even one sentence of your contention is true, I will respond on his or her talk page if so asked. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This film will not have box office figures listed or coverage in mainstream film industry materials due to its unconventional free online release. This is the basis of its newsworthiness, as demonstrated by the film's recognition at the 2010 the Webby Awards and the Outside The Lines journalism program on ESPN.

To make this article as complete as possible, I am currently searching through the hundreds of Google and Bing results for "Sonicsgate" and adding source citations and information as appropriate. It is true that this article needs additional information and citations to match the level of robustness found in other Wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AyeDarrell (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cast list[edit]

Another part of the article that needs work is the cast list. As it stands now, the list is not very helpful. It's just a random listing of people. The list doesn't tell us what those people do in the documentary, how big their role is, or anything. Specifically, the list looks like a large collection of names that (1) have been thrown into the list because even though the people may have been on-screen briefly, their celebrity status seemingly adds weight to the film, or (2) the person is of marginal importance to the Seattle-area and is using Wikipedia as a platform for name recognition.

I think the list should be condensed down to the core on-screen people of the film, and their sections should be expanded to tell what they do in the film. That would appear to be a consistent approach with the manual of style.

Merely quoting from publications made by people affiliated with Sonicsgate is not really good enough, as that gets us back into the second problem I enumerated in the first paragraph. Good secondary sources should make it obvious who the key players are in the documentary. If we can use those as references, the cast list would be more robust and informative. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This information is consistent with the IMDB page listing. Since this is a documentary, these people all fit the category of "Interview Subjects." How would you have them be broken down further? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AyeDarrell (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:CASTLIST it actually says, "The key is to provide plenty of added value 'behind the scenes' background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB." The cast list should provide insightful information to the reader. Currently, the list gives very little information about who does what or why. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above and a review of other Wikipedia articles on documentary films, I have removed the cast section from the article. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm disappointed to see that I discuss each of my edits here on the talk page only to have them reverted without discussion. I reviewed many recent documentary articles such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Super Size Me, An Inconvenient Truth, Darfur Now, March of the Penguins, and Religilous. None have cast lists. The cast list on the Sonicsgate page is dissimilar from the list on the page for The Aristocrats (film). The list on that page is homogenous. That is, every name on the list is a comedian that has told the "aristocrats" joke or provide commentary on the joke. The list on the Sonicsgate page is a collection of names from various occupations with various roles in the film and various levels of importance both in the film and in the real world.
Moreover, as described at WP:CASTLIST, the list should ideally be in prose and provide background information regarding the film. Instead, the list gives the appearance of a recitation of IMDb with very little information explaining why each individual appears in the documentary. We might be able to avoid a final issue with the list, but I will at least mention that the list is also self-serving for a group of people that engaged in an aggressive campaign of personal attacks and POV-pushing with respect to the move of the Sonics from Seattle to Oklahoma City. Those individuals (or possibly a singular individual) received numerous blocks for their actions.
As it is, the article is quite slanted. The sections regarding the critical reviews and awards is lengthier and more positive than the analogous sections for Raging Bull, The Silence of the Lambs (film), and Bowling for Columbine. That would seem hardly appropriate for a documentary that wasn't even a blip on the radar outside of Seattle or a few members of the sports media. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the Critical response section, it needs to be trimmed, as per WP:QUOTEFARM. I think rewording it to something along the lines of "Sonicsgate received positive reviews from many sports writers and film critics, including A, B, C, and D." with one or two (at the most) quotes as an example, used in the text itself, not as a separate text. - SudoGhost™ 04:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with the reviews is that if you go to Rotten Tomatoes there is only one review, and it was written over a year after the film was made. That basically means that no major critics actually reviewed the film. As far as I can tell, with the exception of one critic quoted in the article, all of the critics are either (1) sports journalists, or (2) from Seattle. The quote from Bill Simmons isn't even a critical review. It's a posting where he is giving predictions for some NFL games, and in passing he mentions that people should watch this documentary (and Simmons was on record on numerous occasions before the film was released essentially agreeing with the viewpoint of the film's creators). Chicken Wing (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm personally not very knowledgeable in this subject, I think it would be best to get an additional opinion, so I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture (as can be seen at the top of this talk page section). That way we can hopefully get the opinion of multiple editors. However, I do support the overhauling of the Critical response section, as per above. No other movie has a section formatted in this way, or riddled with so many reviews. - SudoGhost™ 03:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the RFC... Chicken Wing (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of documentary participants[edit]

Recently, the list of participant were removed from the article.

How do suppress this content in context to a documentary-style movie? Particularly as opposed to WP:FILMCAST of auditioned and cast professional actors in a scripted movied? UW Dawgs (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of suppression, and saying that is putting you on a bad foot from the start. The section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, and that excessive over-use of content from the sources violates Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. We can't just copy the source and put quotes around them in lieu of writing the actual article, that's incredibly lazy writing, even if WP:NFCC did allow it. As for WP:FILMCAST, documentaries are still films and just because they are not as scripted as other films doesn't somehow create some exception for documentaries just because the cast "isn't acting". - SudoGhost 19:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited reviews[edit]

The section containing the three cited reviews of this documentary have been entirely removed. The original discussion was initiated with the "The section citing critical reviews is just a collection of positive quotes from appears to be sports writers and not film critics, and the reviews are quoted in a style more fitting of a press release for the film than for a Wikipedia article." and fractured from there.

On point, MOS:FILM#Documentaries states "Also, sometimes a documentary will be reviewed not just by film critics, but by authorities in the topic that the documentary covers; their reviews can be referenced." So reviews from non-film entities or sports media in particular, aren't inherently excluded (or included).

I believe the second criticism appeared to be leveled on balance of the reviews. If that is a fair representation, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than simply removing the section containing the three cited reviews. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed your first section above was about this as well, so the response already made applies to this as well. - SudoGhost 19:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary participants and documentary reviews are separate topics, hence two threads. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to remove your comment, but there was and is no need for a separate section, since it was already brought up above in the initial response to your first section. - SudoGhost 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I originally brought this up, the section with reviews was just a bunch of positive quotes taken straight from the Sonicsgate publicity website. I suppose it's fine to mention that members of the sports media and Seattle media gave the film positive reviews. But as I originally pointed out, despite the film being reviewed by no major film critics, the original section was more positive than the review sections for all-time great films.
As for the list of people, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of facts. The cast list should be informative. It should tell us who the key people are in the movie and what they do and how they ended up in it. I don't want to violate the rules on outing people on Wikipedia, so I will state vaguely that the cast list had basically become a vehicle for non-notable Seattle locals to try to get their names on a Wikipedia page. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sonicsgate. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonicsgate&oldid=1211618107"