Talk:Logie Award
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Logie Award is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Graham Kennedy is the man who named the awards "Logies". He did so after being the first recipient of the Gold Logie. How this article cannot mention this most basic and fundamental fact is beyond me...
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. --Robert Merkel 06:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Readded information
After Media Watch highlighted the fact that ACP had edited some parts of this article (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2016916.htm) I thought it might be appropriate to review what has been deleted and readd that information. I suggest people add tags to parts they feel need citation rather than straight-out deletion. You can view Wikipedia's style guide on this matter here: Wp:cite#Unsourced_material. Your definition of "harmful" may differ from mine -- if you have objections then I suggest you raise them here first; the information that was deleted had been a part of the article for a very long time so its sudden deletion makes no sense to me.--121.45.231.15 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Although I personally agree with the criticisms made of the Logies in this article, it does seem that they are, shall we say, non-encyclopedic in tone. However I don't feel strongly enough about this to bother editing. Ordinary Person 08:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
