 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
problematic editing edit
While noted elsewhere, e.g. in the article's edit summaries and at User talk:Smiddly, the history of some problematic editing on this article somehow failed to be noted on this talk page at the time, which is somewhat unfortunate. Some of that problematic editing has lately returned. diff shows that the three sources TimeOut, The Observer, and Little White Lies along with accompanying article text were removed with the edit summary "removing dead links." As of this moment, in fact only one of those links is not working: Little White Lies. The others work fine. There are some problems in relation to this.
One is that per WP:DEADLINK, when a link is no longer working, one should not automatically remove it, but should instead use a search engine to find if the page has moved, and if it no longer seems to be live on the internet, whether it may have been archived. The Little White Lies review in fact is still online; the page had only moved. Additionally, for print publications, the links are just a WP:CONVENIENCE, since one could still look up them up in a news database or the print publications themselves for the given dates.
Another problem is that these three reviews were all critical of the film and thus removing them looks questionable, particularly when by a single-purpose account that has made a number of problematic edits, edit summaries, and talk page comments in relation to this article in the past. The sole remaining critical reference was then removed diff by another WP:SPA with no edit summary at all. That leaves only the Film 4 reference, which I note does not have the 3 out of 5 rating the article says it does, but just 2 1/2 out of 5. None of this is particularly good to see going on. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)