From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
|
| Editing Guidelines |
|
Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:
- If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
- Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
[edit] Quit reverting
Rebecca, I haven't even seen this movie, so I can hardly have an opinion on it. Summarizing critics' responses is certainly NPOV-and in fact, the two reviews seemed to disagree (the Rotten Tomatoes one mostly saying the movie isn't very good, the Movie Magazine one stating that it's flawed but overall worthwhile.) If you can point me to some additional reviews, I'll happily include those as well, but that's all I can find so far. You also might do well to remember the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise - I'd gotten you confused with User:Supernumerary. Summarising critics responses in a NPOV way is useful, but very difficult to do, and hasn't been done here. The article at the moment just cites two random reviews which more-or-less agree with each other; just as if I'd instead added two very positive reviews, it is arbitrary and biased, whether intentionally or not. I've seen this sort of thing done well where a whole bunch of varying views have been cited (if you cite enough, some sort of consensus does become evident), but there is just no way that one can cite two reviewers and neutrally call it a "critical consensus". Rebecca 03:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Will take a shot at finding some more-though many I found were of similar tone, they were generally blog-type stuff and other sources that aren't too reliable. I'll see what I can come up with, please point me to any you know of as well. Seraphimblade 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Addition-filed for a third opinion, hopefully that can resolve things. Seraphimblade 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Third opinion: Stop removing the section please. There are lots of reviews here some of which are of a positive nature, so some of that can easily be added instead. Also beware that the tomato-meter doesn't always reflect completely all the aspects that the reviewers addressed in their reviews. I would prefer it if, in addition to the tomato-meter-score, the section quoted a representative of the average, one positive, and one more negative. That takes some slight work, but a lot less than revert-warring. --GunnarRene 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that Rotten Tomatoes section out! As you suggest, will remove the Rotten Tomatoes summary and put a synopsis of some of those in instead. Seraphimblade 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- My two cents: This article is hardly thorough and does not discuss the movie itself and its significance enough. First, it should be a good article. Then the topic of critics' response should be discussed. - Emiellaiendiay 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
