Talk:2012: Doomsday
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
I've checked over the sourcing. This does pass NFILM but the sourcing doesn't look the greatest at first glance. Be prepared to defend this if someone were to nominate this at AfD. I've removed the SPS What Katy Reviewed because I couldn't find any justification for it to be included - no RS seem to use it as a source and the site doesn't seem to be anything other than a routine SPS. Film Critics United and OutNow initially don't look like much but they have been used as a RS in academic and scholarly sources. Collider is OK and I personally see it as usable, but there's been some pushback against lists like this from places like Collider, as they see it as kind of churnalism and capsule reviews. The Arkansas Times is probably fine - a smaller paper, but fine. It's deemed a tabloid but doesn't seem to be a tabloid in the way that the NYP is a tabloid. Otherwise the sources are all trivial mentions or in the case of ScreenRant, a routine database listing. No reviews at RT, so that would be seen as a database listing as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Comment: I'm not certain this passes NFILM. I'll give a rundown of the sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Comment: Please add multiple reviews from well reliable critics and sources. Reviews on blogs and personal sites are unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Reply