This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 19 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:41, 19 January 2007 by Jossi (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Film Stub‑class | |||||||
|
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.
- 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".
I have moved the award to the appropriate section rather than the lead, as done with many other award-winning documentaries.- 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)