<article_title>Batman_(1989_film)</article_title>
<edit_user>Wildroot</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, October 24, 2008 3:08:09 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Design */</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Costume designer Bob Ringwood (A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Troy) turned down the chance to work on Licence to Kill in favor of Batman. Ringwood found it difficult designing the Batsuit because &quot;the image of Batman in the comics is this huge, big six-foot-four hunk with a dimpled chin. Michael Keaton is a guy with average build,&quot; <strong><strike>Ringwood</strike></strong><strong>He</strong> stated. &quot;The problem was to make somebody who was average-sized and ordinary looking into this bigger-than-life creature.&quot;&lt;ref name=batto&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Burton commented, &quot;Michael is a bit claustrophobic, which made it worse for him. The costume put him in a dark, Batman-like mood though, so he was able to use it to his advantage.&quot;&lt;ref name=batto/&gt; Comic book fans originally had negative feedback against the Batsuit.&lt;ref name=Elfman/&gt; Burton opted not to use tights, spandex or underpants as seen in the comic book, feeling it wasn't intimidating.&lt;ref name=Elfman/&gt; Ringwood studied over 200 comic book issues for inspiration. 28 sculpted latex designs were created; 25 different cape looks and 6 different heads were made, accumulating a total cost of $250,000.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Burton's idea was to use an all-black suit, and was met with positive feedback by Bob Kane. Jon Peters wanted to use a Nike product placement with the Batsuit.&lt;ref&gt;Bob Ringwood, Tim Burton, Designing the Batsuit, 2005, Warner Home Video&lt;/ref&gt; Prosthetic makeup designer Nick Dudman (Harry Potter film series, Legend) used acrylic paint for Nicholson's chalk-white face. Part of Nicholson's contract was approval over who was to design his makeup.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Erik<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, October 24, 2008 11:51:26 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Reliable Sources</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Before I take this article to Featured Article Candidacy, I have to prove that the following websites are reliable sources: http://www.superherohype.com
http://www.snarkygossip.com
http://www.dailyscript.com
http://www.batmanytb.com
http://www.batman-on-film.com
http://www.scifiscripts.com
Since I have no way of explaining this, other than Being Bold, it's probably best to collect other opinions from editors. http://www.superherohype.com because it has its own page at Superhero Hype!, it that makes any sense. Batman-on-Film might pass since "Batman-related" filmmakers such as David Goyer, Michael Uslan and Chris Corbould call call it reliable. And nice. However, the other websites might be a little tricky. Alientraveller said it's good to only use sites like those for interviews and set visits, when information comes directly from the source. Then again, the doesn't explain http://www.scifiscripts.com or http://www.dailyscript.com. Comment - On general principle, none of those places are reliable. If "DailyScript.com" and "SciFiScript.com" are placed to get scripts, then absolutely no. You need to find a source that talks about the script, as the actual script is difficult to authenticate. Unless those other sources have personal interviews they are conducting, then they aren't reliable. Batman-on-film is a fansite. It's like Kryptonsite.com for Smallville. It may be accurate, but it isn't reliable. background:Maroon;color:Gold &amp;BIGNOLE&amp; (Contact me) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think that except for SuperHeroHype.com, which is published by Coming Soon Media, L.P. and Crave Online Media, LLC, the other websites are self-published. Per WP:SPS, I don't think that the websites besides SuperHeroHype.com would be acceptable because they're not run by established experts who have been published elsewhere. How dependent is the article on these resources? Perhaps you could find a way to replace the resources: "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." —Palatino LinotypeErik (talk • contrib) 23:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I did fix the sci-fi scripts link because of a script review from IGN. I guess everyone agrees on Superhero Hype! since you guys use it in all of your other articles. background:Maroon;color:Gold &amp;BIGNOLE&amp; said that "unless those other sources have personal interviews they are conducting, then they aren't reliable". Yes, all of those websites have personal interviews they are conducting. So I guess that pretty much solves everything, right? Wildroot (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) We don't use, or at least we shouldn't, SHH unless they has word-of-mouth information. If they're doing scooper reports, then no..and SHH likes to do a lot of "inside information" reports...just like BOF.com has their "insider" that gives them information. Without specific names of someone they contacted, then it really isn't reliable because rumors are rumors and that is what that information is when someone official has not announced it. background:Maroon;color:Gold &amp;BIGNOLE&amp; (Contact me) 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)It was a Michael Uslan interview. Not "a-I-just-heart-from-one-of-my-inside-sources-at-Warner-Bros." type of report. Wildroot (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Comment: I think that except for SuperHeroHype.com, which is published by Coming Soon Media, L.P. and Crave Online Media, LLC, the other websites are self-published. Per WP:SPS, I don't think that the websites besides SuperHeroHype.com would be acceptable because they're not run by established experts who have been published elsewhere. How dependent is the article on these resources? Perhaps you could find a way to replace the resources: "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." —Palatino Linotype</turn_text>