Talk:Not Evil Just Wrong: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:43, 9 October 2009

A lot more info on this from blogs. But we can't include that right? Kmm8392 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally not included but you can read about self-published sources which includes information on when their use is appropriate. Wperdue (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I added a category for documentaries but it says there is no categories. Also-doesn't the official site count as a source? I want to make sure I'm getting this right... Kmm8392 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the category at the bottom of the page. As to your other question, you will want to add reliable third-party sources to establish that this film is notable. These can be newspaper, magazine, television, or internet sources and even things such as radio interviews. They just have to be verifiable in some way. I started by adding one from the Irish Times. Just follow that template, and you should be fine. Wperdue (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many resources before we can take down the wiki citation alert? Kmm8392 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Re:POV?-

Hello... Just a question, this is a currently controversial subject, & I am interested in reading viewpoints opposed to any issue seeking a general consensus- like environment policy change - but this article seems more like a publicity page for the film-makers? Has there been NO counter-arguments about the films at all in trade magazines or related issue journals? Would be nice to see even one 'Negative' review for a sense that it has actually been viewed by someone in the larger world. Or are these productions so small, (or just 'vanity' productions) that they do not attract a high enough level of interest to have developed ANY serious criticism? Also the article itself is badly composed & could use a going over for grammatic clarity. Run on sentences & so on. I don't have the time but maybe someone could try & spiff it up a little, it just 'read' awkwardly. 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)mbd71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 How many resources before we can take down the wiki citation alert? [[User:Kmm8392|Kmm8392]] ([[User talk:Kmm8392|talk]]) 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
+== -Re:POV?- ==
+Hello...
+Just a question, this is a currently controversial subject, & I am interested in reading viewpoints opposed to any  issue seeking a general consensus- like environment policy change - but this article seems more like a publicity page for the film-makers? Has there been NO counter-arguments about the films at all in trade magazines or related issue journals?  Would be nice to see even one 'Negative' review for a sense that it has actually been viewed by someone in the larger world.
+Or are these productions so small, (or just 'vanity' productions) that they do not attract a high enough level of interest to have developed ANY serious criticism? Also the article itself is badly composed & could use a going over for grammatic clarity. Run on sentences & so on. I don't have the time but maybe someone could try & spiff it up a little, it just 'read'  awkwardly.     [[Special:Contributions/71.6.81.62|71.6.81.62]] ([[User talk:71.6.81.62|talk]]) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)mbd[[Special:Contributions/71.6.81.62|71.6.81.62]] ([[User talk:71.6.81.62|talk]]) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)