Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Batman Forever/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a good article reassessment. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:23, 25 December 2007.

I was concerned to see that an editor who has only been editing since November 3, 2007 passed this as a Good Article. These are the following issues: Done I'll get to work on the other two improvements later. Wildroot 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Done I think you should see for yourself. I wrote it in the same format/style that you wrote in Road to Perdition#Reception. The reason why I included quotes from Schumacher were because of his reaction towards the reviews, so to speak. Now, I'm just trying my best to find those articles you listed. They are of course hard to find, but I did purchase two magazines off EBAY with a total of three dollars each. They were original published material specifically from Warner Brothers. I'm going to see what I can dig up, catch you later. Wildroot 11:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Hopefully, these improvements can be made. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Non-free images in the article besides the identifying poster image lack sufficient fair use rationale.
 * 1) The "Critical analysis" section barely has any reviewers talking about the film. A lot of the content is from people involved with the film itself.  It would be appropriate to have more independent perspectives -- see Road to Perdition for such a section.
 * 1) Purely online sources are not sufficient for shaping an article's content. Take a look at User:Erik/Batman Forever for many sources that should be used in the article.  Even Good Articles require some research beyond what's accessible via Google.
 * Comment I make no comments other than to refute the above single claim; that online sources alone are not sufficient. There are many online sources that are reliable enough to pass WP:RS.  If individual online sources used by the article are not reliable, please note which references need replacing.  However, one cannot summarily reject all online references as inherently unreliable. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)