Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)