Why was my review removed?

@Fran​ I resubmitted, but reading the guidelines I don’t see anything from my previous review that would make it not qualify. Can you expand on what guideline wasn’t met? Thank you.

There is hateful speech towards a performer also, the review does not focus on the title content.

@Fran​ Sorry, I do not recall any hateful speech, it was completely about the content (or more specifically the lack of evidence for their claim. 

@Fran In an effort to avoid this in the future (or to understand if someone is just reporting the review and it was removed without reviewing the content), I'm posting my original review to ask how it does not focus on the title content (and to understand if the last line is really the "hateful speech": A film failing miserably at attempting to prove and photo of unknown people shows Billy the Kid (it doesn't) while at the same time trying to claim facial recognition also matches the photo to Brushy Billy Roberts (a man who pretended to be, but wasn't Billy the Kid). It starts by trying to establish provenance by simply saying the photo was found in Canada and pointing out that a Silver City resident (who they claim was in the photo but there's no proof to back this up) was from Canada, and concluding that established provenance (an absurd jump). The rest of it is is facial recognition claims that have many problems, including misidentified source photos (which leaves the "expert"; comparing photos or 2 or 3 different persons and claiming they are all one and the same). Amazing how far Emilio Estevez has fallen to be narrating this garbage.

Or, going line by line: "A film failing miserably at attempting to prove and photo of unknown people shows Billy the Kid (it doesn't) while at the same time trying to claim facial recognition also matches the photo to Brushy Billy Roberts (a man who pretended to be, but wasn't Billy the Kid)"--this lays out the premise of the film and my opinion that they did not succeed in their goal, so it is definitely about the content.

Next: "It starts by trying to establish provenance by simply saying the photo was found in Canada and pointing out that a Silver City resident (who they claim was in the photo but there's no proof to back this up) was from Canada, and concluding that established provenance (an absurd jump)"--the first section of the film is about establishing provenance and this is definitely about that.

Next: "The rest of it is is facial recognition claims that have many problems, including misidentified source photos (which leaves the "expert"; comparing photos or 2 or 3 different persons and claiming they are all one and the same)." A large portion of the film deals with facial recognition work, again, directly about the content of the film.

Finally: "Amazing how far Emilio Estevez has fallen to be narrating this garbage." Is this line the issue? OK, maybe this was a bit personal and I did not include it in my revised review, however, it is a comment on a known actor working on a film of this quality, and the quality part is again definitely about the content. 

@Shootseven​ Hi!

I can now see your submitted review is approved and live on the site.

Cheers!