Talk:State of Grace (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the State of Grace (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
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) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) 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.

[edit] POV

People ought to stop trying to be film critics. You're creating original content which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Dyl 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which content are you referring to? I am unaware of anything in the article which is not discussed by movie critics. What original content are you referring to? User:StillstudyingMax 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph talking about the performances. It's definitely original content unless you put in direct quotes from professional reviewers. Dyl

I disagree, the paragraph was a sumnation of 9 separate reviews, which obviously cannot be quoted individually, or the portion discussing performances would become 9 paragraphs long. Summaries of critiques are not original content. But it is not worth an argument. I would appreciate, if you believe my work to be original research, if you simply sent me a message. The crack about people ought to stop being film critics is petty and unnecessary.

If notified you have a question or issue with content, I will then do as I did here, which is, even though I disagree with you, replace the content in question with the best direct quote of the nine. I strive for consensus, and try to avoid acrimony. I realize you have strong feelings on editors attempting to be critics, but please, just send me a direct message, (I work a fair amount on movies, so we may meet again!), and we can work out any language difficulties. But the petty cracks, please, spare me. Stillstudying Max 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize since your intention matches what I believe wikipedia ought to be. It's just that I have seen so many people put in their own pet theories and critiques in these movie articles. Dyl 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I understand your distress at people putting in their own theories and critigues, and where any language is in dispute, I agree with you absolutely that the best way to resolve it is use a direct quotation from a critic. I salute your efforts to end so much home grown pet theories, and hope to work with you in bettering movie articles. Thanks for being understanding. (and actually I believe you improved the article by having me use a direct quote - it is more powerful than my summary of the existing critiques!) Stillstudying Max 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)