Talk:Fisher Klingenstein Films

I created this page today, May 22, 2013. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag response

A tag was placed on this article, with no discussion or explanation on this talk page. The tag questioned the neutrality of the article, and alleged that it read like an advertisement.

The article contains direct quotes and in-line citations from reputable third party sources, including all of the following: the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, Variety, Huffington Post, and Film Journal International. These are recognized third-party sources, and they were quoted directly in the article, with in-line citations at every point.

It starts to appear like drive-by editing, when a tag is placed with no discussion or explanation on the Talk Page and that tag is clearly refuted by the article itself.

Tag removed, and please be more mindful of drive-by editing. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly refuted by the article itself? OK, then please answer to the following biased or otherwise unsubstantiated claims:

-"company led by veteran producer/financiers", who said they are veteran?

-" were the founders of the noted film and television company City Lights Media" who said that City LIghts Media is noted?

-"has produced award-winning films such as the acclaimed Two Family House and Trumbo." who said these two films were acclaimed, and what awards did Trumbo win?

-"It rolled out to the prestigious Laemmle Music Hall in Beverly Hills" who said this music hall is prestigious?

-"The film [backdoor channels] was well-received." Really? Because it's wiki pages says the reviews were mixed. Imdb has it at a 4.8 rating, 3.5 on rotton tomatoes

-"The film was praised for its unblinking intimacy, and compassionate treatment of human frailty." Who said this? Praise would make it seem multiple people said something like this.

- The LA Times quotes on OC 87 are not properly linked, we just have to take your word for it.

If I need to go on I'd be happy to. Further, the lead is found verbatim across multiple sites, including two that (lol) were actually sourced: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2011/10/05/NY81348

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fisher-klingenstein-films-acquires-back-door-channels---the-price-of-peace-124294779.html

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Guerrilla Marketing 101.

Tags will be put back into place. The page needs a whole re-write. Removal of tags again without proper due diligence will be considered vandalism.Sulfurboy (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed

Sulfurboy,

Thank you for particularizing your editorial concerns. I found them helpful, and was able to address all of them them specifically.

I removed all the modifiers you cited in your list above (veteran, noted, prestigious, well-received, etc.).

I provided in-line citations to the awards which apply to Two Family House and Trumbo.

I re-wrote the lede.

I could not find a current link to the Los Angeles Times article, so I deleted that paragraph altogether. That was a good catch on your part. Also, I was able to find reviews in the New York Post, Hollywood Reporter and Village Voice that do have current links, so the article is stronger in that sense.

Your comments were helpful; thank you for setting them down. It enabled me to apply them and improve the article.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of press releases

This article cited the same press release at four different points of publication, which of course can inadvertently give the impression that more diverse sources are used than actually are. I've consolidated them down into one, which does make it more obviously that a substantial amount of information in this article relies on a press release by the company itself.

While it is certainly possible to include information about what primary sources say about themselves, (see WP:SPS) this isn't preferred and should be supplementary to other material. I've tagged one section that is dependent entirely on such sources to point out the need for reliable sources for that section. In the meantime, I've clarified that every claim in that section is authored by the company itself.

I've also removed the link to their Amazon page, as this is neither a reliable source nor did it support anything in the sentence to which it was appended. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many reviews

I found this article while looking for more info on OC87 and it instantly comes off as an advertisement, mostly due to the large number of quoted praise. I skimmed WP:MOSFILM#Critical_response and couldn't find any specific warning about this sort of thing, but as a casual user, it's the major problem with the page. (The 'Theatrical Releases' section could use some cleanup, anyway.) I'm going to add an NPOV tag and then do some edits in the hopes of cleaning this up. FekketCantenel (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit complete.

Split movies into sections and added 'see' where they had their own articles.
Removed director's Emmy credits; irrelevant to the movie, especially in a summary.
Removed the poster for movies that have their own page (mostly because there were formatting problems when trying to include them with shortened text).
Removed advertising text in summaries ('men who risked everything, even their lives', etc.).
Trimmed summaries where the movies have their own page.
Removed reviews from movies that have their own page.
Removed trailer links (advertising).

OC 87 should be given its own page, on which a few of the reviews can still be quoted. I've left the section relatively untouched to show their extent (note that it contains 8 of the page's 16 citations). FekketCantenel (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by CONSENSUS

A massive amount of sourced information was removed from this page -- without any discussion between editors, and without any consensus. 2,712 bytes of sourced information were removed. The page is now restored with its sourced information.

In addition, an NPOV tag was placed over material that was substantiated and sourced (with in-line citations) by the New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Post and Hollywood Reporter. The sourcing and in-line citations have been restored, the NPOV tag removed.

The editor who removed the 2,712 bytes of information stated that they "skimmed WP:MOSFILM#Critical_response and couldn't find any specific warning about this sort of thing." However WP:MOSFILM#Critical_response specifically states the following:

"Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged."

Therefore, please refrain from removing sourced information, and removing thousands of bytes from an article with no prior consensus. Sarason (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't start an edit war by reverting those changes. However, this page was and is in serious need of help and it is very frustrating to have all that work reverted so that the article can remain a press release for the film studio. There *was* previous discussion above, as you can see from all the complaints about this NPOV page.

After looking through the relevant templates, I am adding a news release banner to the main page and requesting a second opinion on fixing it, as the article in its current state is unacceptable. (Ask any casual user to look at the page and then time how long it takes them to roll their eyes.) If there is a more appropriate banner to use, please advise or edit, but *please* do not simply remove the banner, as the problem has not been fixed and has been extant for over a year. (see also: WP:Status_quo_stonewalling#Drive-by_long-distance_reverts.) FekketCantenel (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not immediately transparent and I only discovered this by clicking their names: Nelsondenis248 and Sarason are the same user, who created this page and has been fighting POV revisions on it since the beginning. This user is therefore fully aware that there has been extensive discussion of these issues and appears to be stonewalling. FekketCantenel (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate article created: FilmRise

There is a complete duplicate of this page at FilmRise. Please see its talk page for discussion. FekketCantenel (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]