Talk:King Cobra (1999 film)

Apollo Movie Guide
Apollo Movie Guide seems to have wide consensus for use as an accepted review source.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not show any consensus for use, only that it has been added to articles by someone. People frequently try to cite IMDB, but overwhelming consensus is that it is not a reliable source. So such random searching doesn't show anything, and certainly doesn't explain why it is supposedly a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Accepted and respected experts of the Online Film Critics Society write for Apollo Movie Guide, and the guide is itself quoted by reliable sources such as The Evening Standard and The Times. Usage by accepted reliable sources and experts does tend to confirm it as reliable enough for Wikipedia in context to what is being sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking the above per discussions at WP:RSN. While Apollo Movie Guide has not yet shown itself a reliable source, The opinion the reviewer are theirs, and not that the webiste. Opinions are opinions, nothing else. It is the expertise of the reviewer that might add of diminish the weight or quality of their opinion. That Cheryl DeWolfe may have a certain credibility as a reviewer is worth considering... but only so far as her offering her opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion there, I have removed it. As is clear in the discussion, the site is not a reliable source. Her opinion, is therefore, meaningless and irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The last sentence in your comment is woefuly incorrect. A film critics "opinion" is what makes them film critics, and thus their opinions are not meaningless not irrelevent... else folks like Roger Ebert would be out of a job. It is their field of expertise. While agreeing that Apollo guide has not itself been found as RS, per WP:ELMAYBE's stating that sites to be considered for ELs are those "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", I had placed and now replaced the film review by a film reviewer to the external links section.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She is not a film critic, as she is not a reliable source. As such, she is just a random person expressing an opinion. Opinions are like X - everyone has one. Her's is not relevant as she is NOT a critic nor expert, so continuing to try to spam her review here is pointless. You haven't proven she is anything but some random blogger. As such, it completely fails WP:EL and has been removed again. Ebert is a professional, she is a nobody. By your flawed argument, anyone who blogged about this film should be allowed to have a link here, which of course is ridiculous. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion of a film reviewer as if it were itself fact... more than a bit ironic considering this discussion. The person you call "some random blogger" is an author and contributor to Rotten Tomatoes... a site where she has over 120 reviews available, and which work speaks toward her expertise.  That she also wrote a review for what Wikipedia calls a non-RS site does not diminish nor discredit her expertise to review a film.  Your incorrectly removed an EL that met WP:ELMAYBE. If you disgree with guideline, please lobby to change it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. I have 90 reviews on ePinions, doesn't make me a professional either. Nor is she an "author and contributor" to RT, they link to her reviews on Apollo, which is not the same thing. She is neither RS and EL. It doesn't have anything to do with ELMAYBE because, as was clearly noted in the RSN, she is NOT a recognized expert on anything. Just a random reviewer expressing her random opinion. Therefore, the link is irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What was noted in the RSN discussion, was that while Apollo Movie Guide has not been determined as RS, if a reviewer's opinon was used it should be attributed to that reviewer AS opinion and not to the site, RS or not, as a review is always opinion and not fact. And there's no need to compare real reviewers with bloggers who post stuff on ePinion. It has been noted in many discussions that while ePinions accepts inexpert blogger opinions, they also have reviews from expert reviewers... and so it is always important to check the pedigree of a reviewer before considering its use.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point. She had no "pedigree", she is neither an expert nor a professional film critic. She is, again, a nobody. And no, the RSN noted that neither she nor the site were reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We may have been at different discussions... however, thank you for again asserting your opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my opinion, but consensus which, as usual, you dislike. And I'm not the only one to say so. "DeWolfe does not appear to be a recognized expert in the field" - quoted from the same noticeboard. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem with true consensus, and I quite respect and appreciate the courteous and civil manner in which User:Jayjg explained his view to my question. Please do not presume to know what I like or dislike.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE says, "Professional reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section." Reviews should not be added as external links. Erik (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Erik, I believe #1 would apply only if the review was in an RS so it could qulaify as proper source. I was going by #4 which states "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  Though Apollo Movie Guide contains much information, it is not curently considered a reliable source, so #4 would be the applicable portion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I usually don't see reviews as external links. Ordinarily, only notable reviews are utilized, and not as ELs. I've never heard of this Apollo before but it seems to not be notable. If it is, then it should be in the "critical reception" section. If not, then it shouldn't be there at all. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two ironies, which doesn't further this conversation one iota but I can't resist pointing out.
 * Consensus is merely a group of opinions, often a few veteran editors deciding what everyone else should do.
 * We are all nobodies here too. :) Ikip 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fangoria
This reflects that the film received coverage in Fangoria. Erik (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Erik, you are a master of proper WP:BEFORE. Thank you much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

 * I don't know if this helps, (I am a little torn about the notability about these sites, but would like to see this resolved on the talk page first, to avoid an edit war):
 * 131 wikipedia pages link to http://efilmcritic.com
 * 25 wikipedia pages link to apolloguide.com
 * I hate all these silly policy arguments as above, because the entire premise is based on what a small handful of "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas" "nobodies" who, decided what was going to be the rules.
 * I don't see what the big deal is whether these sites stay or go on the article page either way. The sites are now on the talk page.
 * Maybe the two of you can comprimise? The efilmcritic.com stays on the main article page and the apolloguide.com is removed from the main article page? Ikip 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept a reasonble compromise, and appreciate that one has been offered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither is an appropriate link, so no, I would not accept such a false "compromise" when it does nothing good for the article, only degrades it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see any offer or wish by AnmaFinotera to seek a compromise. However, and in support of the Ikip compromise proposal, I wish to state that even if they do not yet have an article on Wikipedia, eFilmCritic does seem to have the respect of many of the other sites that Wikipedia considers reliable for their own editorial staff and reputations for fact checking and accuracy. The accepted RS that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and choose to use eFilmCritic as a source include Screen Digest, Daily Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Los Angeles Times, Hartford Courant, Chicago Sun-Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, News & Record, Sunday Herald, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Animation World Network, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsday, The Record, Yakima Herald-Republic, Telegraph, San Diego Union-Tribune, Daily Astorian, Kansas City Star, Dayton Daily News, Deseret News, Hollywood Reporter, Financial Post, Jewish Journal... to list only a few.
 * This seems indicative of two things:
 * 1) eFilmCritic seems to surpass requirements of WP:GNG and would themself merit an article of some kind, and
 * 2) even if not (yet) accepted as RS, eFilmCritic is shown as a suitable compromise EL for films per the consideratons of WP:ELMAYBE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Until we get this resolved Michael, would you be willing to remove the eFilmCritic site also? Ikip 01:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to a temporary removal, but not by me. Best if an uninvolved admin removes it until this is resolved through the question being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:External_links... of course, once 24 hours has passed since the first removal, it may well be removed again anyway.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with reviews from eFilmCritic or Apollo Guide being used in the critical reception section of a film article. I think that arguing compliance with WP:RS is somewhat irrelevant because neither link is being used to claim facts or figures but, instead, cites an offered personal opinion. When establishing notability of a film, the first criterion whose satisfaction will presume notability asks that the film be "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Based on how widely Cheryl DeWolfe is quoted on Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes and elsewhere, I would consider her to be a "nationally known critic" and, therefore, acceptable to use her opinion within the article to show that the subject of the article meets the first criterion of WP:NF. James Berardinelli's reviews are self-published which brings up the possibility of lack of editorial oversight as well but he is, nevertheless, widely quoted throughout this project. When speaking of critical reviews, I think the measuring stick should be the familiarity of the reader with a particular author rather than relative reliability of the publishing venue. Having said that, harmful sites, spam sites and sites with flagrantly obvious lack of editorial oversight should be avoided; Cheryl DeWolfe and Apollo Guide do not fall within that scope, in my opinion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with WP:RS being somewhat irrelevant when it comes to opinions. It particularly applies to reviews because anyone can write a review and even get it published in a mainstream publication.  For example, some newspapers publish teenagers' reviews of films, but we wouldn't cite these reviews.  When it comes to reliable sources, there are three related meanings: "the piece of work itself... the creator of the work... and the publisher of the work".  It continues, "All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both."  This is why eFilmCritic reviews are not valid; they are not from authoritative film critics.  There is a somewhat similar issue with Apollo Guide, although they have somewhat more credibility than eFilmCritics reviewers, being more structured and being published by Apollo Communications Ltd.  However, the DeWolfe review would never be used in an article about a mainstream film.  We can acknowledge that mainstream films are reviewed by no lack of authoritative critics.  The question is, do we defer to DeWolfe because we have no authoritative reviews for this film?  I am inclined to say no because it is akin to scraping at the bottom of the barrel; Apollo Guide may have a reputation, but it strains at credibility for usage in an encyclopedia. Erik (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That "anyone can write a review and even get it published in a mainstream publication" (including teenagers) does not stand in contrast to my statement that I believe we should measure the acceptability of a critic's opinion based on the readers' familiarity with the same critic rather than the perceived and relative reliability of the publication in which such an opinion is published. We don't have set criteria to define what "nationally known critic" (as required by WP:NF) means. But if we find it acceptable to almost universally start a critical review section with an RT score in which DeWolfe's opinion is sometimes included, I don't see why we can't find it acceptable to quote a portion of her opinion in a film that, for whatever reason, does not have a plethora of reviews from which we can choose select quotes. If we are to truly believe that quoting her strains at the credibility for usage in an encyclopedia, then the same logic should lead us to abandon quoting RT as a source of critical consensus because RT does not abide by the rules of Wikipedia when it comes to reliable sources and perceived authoritativeness on a given subject and quoting RT might be considered as quoting an unreliable source, then. A film that scored 78% at RT might have only scored 49% if we manually remove all of the DeWolfes of the critic world and arrive at our own percentage of positive reviews of a film. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the approach has been to cite the scores for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as displayed because they are popularly cited and lack the fallacies of user ratings and reviews. For Rotten Tomatoes, sometimes the distinction is made between the overall consensus and the consensus of "Top Critics" (if they differ significantly).  When it comes to citing specific opinions of the film, the general approach is to reference the Top Critics in Rotten Tomatoes or the critics listed in Metacritic (which has a more limited selection).  I know what you are trying to say, but the best way to perceive it is that the aggregation of reviews like DeWolfe's permits polling in an even-handed manner.  This practice contrasts user ratings, which are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew.  The way we implement Rotten Tomatoes, it is less about the individual authors and more about the system used to aggregate the collective consensus based on a controlled set.  We refer to the Top Critics in Rotten Tomatoes for specific opinions because it is easy.  It is still possible to cite the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score in the article but use reviews that may not be listed on either website.  Coming back to the topic, DeWolfe is comparable to an entity with a vote as part of an electorate organized by the website, though her personal commentary does not have enough individual authority for it to be sampled in an encyclopedia.  Of course, you make a point about readers' familiarity since this film is not mainstream; they would recognize the amateur reviewers as relatively authoritative voices of films like these.  I'm not sure if it is possible to add significant substance to these articles (if they are deemed notable) if they run afoul of WP:RS.  With the exception of such films that become famous in retrospect, the majority of them do not seem entitled to more than Stub- or Start-class status. Erik (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the end result of a film's class rating, I think it's definitely a subjective decision to say whether or not DeWolfe's opinion is authoritative enough to be sampled in an encyclopedia. Not that precedent does or should dictate future procedure but she's been sampled many times in this encyclopedia so others have judged her authoritative enough. I understand what you're saying too &mdash; we should strive for higher quality sourcing whenever possible rather than resorting to sources and critics whose authority may come into question by some editors. However, as you've touched upon it yourself, the Eberts of this world can't always be bothered with watching every single piece of cinematic drivel so, at times, we don't get the opportunity to enhance an article with their enlightening and authoritative opinion. Having said that, some of this drivel does end up being notable per our own guidelines and worthy of inclusion (notable film ≠ good film, but we already know that :)). Based on samplings of DeWolfe's opinion pieces, I would really have a hard time stating that she is not a nationally known critic as required by WP:NF because &mdash; authoritative or amateur, good or bad &mdash; she is nationally known (similarily, others might make an argument that Rush Limbaugh isn't authoritative on politics but he is nontheless well known). As such, it is my personal opinion that her reviews are sufficient to satisfy the first criterion of WP:NF in order for us to presume a film being notable. Once we establish that the film is notable based in part on finding a full length review from a nationally known critic, I find it a completely acceptable &mdash; indeed, encouraged &mdash; practice to cite the same review in the critical reception section of the same article. The existence of better sources does not, in my mind, invalidate an otherwise valid source; ie, Phil Mickelson is not a bad golfer for Tiger Woods playing the same sport more successfully.
 * P.S. Sorry for the weasel words. I took the liberty of tagging them myself where applicable :)
 * Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you make cogent and well reasoned comments that underscore the problem of Opinion vs RS. When Ebert is spouting his opinion to a national audience, it does not make him right or wrong or accurate or reliable... his is simply some opinionated somebody spouting to a national showcase.  The national showcase makes him notable per Wikipedia definitions, but notability is not reliability. If Ebert would for some reason write in the neighborhood gazette (circ. 15), how would you judge him then? Reliable because he has sometimes shared his personal opinion at the big venues?  Or unreliable because this particular opinion is now in a showcase not determined as RS?
 * What is most worth considering opinion vs reliability is
 * "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context."
 * We're speaking toward opinion, not accuracy nor truth... all that can be always WP:Verified is that the opinion was made and by whom.
 * "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
 * Someone offering an opinion is offering an opinion... not a fact. Someone may opine that strawberry ice cream is the gift of the Gods, or they might opine that it is the curse of the devil... both being opinions shared to influence other opinions. An opinion about ice cream might be offered by Ebert himself, but such could never be quantified for accuracy or factuality.
 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
 * Certainly reviews are offered to support what is written in an article. Otherwise there would be no reason to use or consider them. So is a determining criteria for utility of a review to Wikipedia to be The Ebert criteria... in that to be Wiki-worthy, someone offering opinion must have large audience base? Or that they have been asked and accepted in offering their opinion repeatedly?  That the opinion must then be be picked up and repeated in other venues?  If so, it would seem then that Big Bird has struck to the core of the situation.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of the opinion being educated. Roger Ebert's opinion is far more educated than Cheryl DeWolfe's.  It is not as simple as the "opinions are like assholes" statement.  There is a whole range of educated opinions between Ebert's opinion and the opinion of Joe who writes Joe's Movie Review Blog.  (Not saying that Ebert is the very top of the range, but he is certainly in the upper echelon.)  Notability (in general, not Wikipedia's definition) is definitely a part of it, for better or worse.  Long-time critics like Ebert are whose reviews circulate the most.  For someone like DeWolfe, her authority of her voice as a film critic depends on the context.  She would not have authority criticizing a mainstream film, but does that mean because this particular film is too small to get attention from Ebert and similar authorities, it finally falls to her?  I have mixed feelings about the viability of articles for films like this, most of all the need to add anyone's remotely non-bloggish review.  Just been in the mainstream territory longer and finding more to write about such films and not worrying about kinds of questions... Erik (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to get too off-topic but I myself have a grave concern that for the private foundation Wikipedia to limit itself to only mainstream, big budget, highly promoted blockbusters, we may tend to then be seen as pandering to only those productions that can spend the money. We do not need to, as Wikipedia does not exist through the advertsing dollars of those major filmmakers. And yes, most assuredly there are no-budget crappers that never get seen nor reviewed nor distributed, and which definitely do not merit an article... so no... we need not be all-encompassing of all films ever made. But I myself pay special heed to the caveat "in context to what is being sourced". Extraordinary or controversial claims need extraordinary sourcing. But to show that a minor genre film is receiving attention from minor genre reviewers seems to be with that intent of context to what is being sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a threshold for inclusion because as a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit will inevitably receive topics merely on the basis that they exist in the contributors' eyes. For this particular group of topics, the approach may need to be reassessed.  A film like this will not become a B-Class article.  It may need to be structured differently from a film article that can be fleshed out.  To me, the infobox contributes to the illusion that there needs to be more said of the film, especially as it, uh, snakes down the side of the article.  Such articles may work better with a more condensed style.  Another option is to rewrite articles like Trimark Pictures to list all their films, describing each one in a paragraph and linking to full articles if they can play the role of one.  For example, for this one, it could make up one full paragraph.  A redirect there would also allow readers to read in the immediate vicinity about similar films under Trimark.  Just that as is, the current approach strains to be credible, and editors typically call out these efforts. Erik (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed from main article page
the following was removed earlier from the main article page: Ikip 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)