<article_title>Batman_(1989_film)</article_title>
<edit_user>Wildroot</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:36:25 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Development */</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Warner Bros. was less willing to move forward on development, despite their enthusiasm for Hamm's script, which <strong>Batman co-creator </strong>Bob Kane greeted with positive feedback.&lt;ref name=Elfman/&gt; Hamm's script then became largely bootlegged at various comic book stores across America.&lt;ref name=White/&gt; Batman was finally given the greenlight after the surprising success of Burton's Beetlejuice (1988).&lt;ref name=Elfman/&gt; When comic book fans found out about Burton directing the film and Michael Keaton starring in the lead role, controversy arose over the tone and direction the film was going in. Hamm claimed, &quot;They hear Tim Burton's name and they think of Pee-wee's Big Adventure. They hear Keaton's name and they think of any number of Michael Keaton comedies. You think of the 1980s version of Batman, and it was the complete opposite. We tried to market it with a typical dark and serious tone, but the fans didn't believe us.&quot;&lt;ref name=White/&gt; To combat negative reports on the film's production, Batman's co-creator Bob Kane was hired as creative consultant.&lt;ref name=production&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>