Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lord of the Universe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:41, 19 January 2007 editJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:51, 19 January 2007 edit undoSmee (talk | contribs)28,728 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:


::I already did. It is now in the lead. I understand that there is a review that was published on The Christian Science Monitor, but I cannot locate it. Maybe you could? ] <small>]</small> 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ::I already did. It is now in the lead. I understand that there is a review that was published on The Christian Science Monitor, but I cannot locate it. Maybe you could? ] <small>]</small> 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you for that information. I will try. ] 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Revision as of 20:51, 19 January 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lord of the Universe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
WikiProject iconFilm Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Thanks for a well researched and meticulously sourced article. I will add some more material to provide some needed context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Do you have hyperlinks for these reviews you have added? I fear that there may be quoted portions of the reviews missing, and quotes in place appearing out of context. Also, the Dupont Award is very notable and should be mentioned early in the article. I will place the WIP tag. PLEASE respect. Smee 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
No, I do not have URLs of free online sources. I use several online databases that require payment.
  1. I have restored the context for Offman as it is pertinent to the article. True, people can hyperlink, but there is no harm in providing context for Hoffman and Davies which you described in your edit as an "activist".
  2. I have moved the award to the appropriate section rather than the lead, as done with many other award-winning documentaries.
  3. I re-ordered the reviews in chronological fashion of their appearance as before. Could you also please provide the exact date for the Los Angeles Times review? Otherwise is not verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I will work on getting the citation date. I will restore the Awards section. This is common for most films articles. Smee 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I already did. It is now in the lead. I understand that there is a review that was published on The Christian Science Monitor, but I cannot locate it. Maybe you could? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. I will try. Smee 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Categories: