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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

San Diego Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject San Diego To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate San Diego related articles from Category:Unassessed San Diego articles and Category:Unknown-importance San Diego articles with the {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner.
Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available: clean-up listing for San_Diego
Expand : San Miguel Mountain, Most articles from Category:Stub-Class San Diego articles.
Photo : Request photos that are needed from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Diego County, California to include in each article.
Stubs : Work on articles in Category:San Diego County, California geography stubs.
Other : * Add {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner to related articles' talk pages and assess.
- Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
- Get San Diego into Featured article status.
- Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic.

WP:NFILM

2 critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, bare minimum for WP:NFILM. Filmforme (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New information meets WP:NFO

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

^ "The Playground". Indie Rights.
^ "The Playground Reviews". Rotten Tomatoes.

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)[reply]

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. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I do feel all of this is more than enough to meet WP:NFILM now by way of WP:NFO and WP:THREE. -- Filmforme (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Playground". Indie Rights.

[2] "The Playground Reviews". Rotten Tomatoes.

[google-3] "Google News KPBS". Google News.

[beth-4] "Beth Accomando Movie Reviews & Previews - Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes.

[kpbs-5] "KPBS.org Movie Reviews & Previews - Rotten Tomatoes". Rotten Tomatoes.

[critieria-6] "Tomatometer® Criteria". Rotten Tomatoes.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]