Talk:The Prince of Egypt

Article improvement

Hello, I have worked extensively with articles that pertain to WikiProject films and got the Lion King to an "A"-class article. I going to assist with the improvement of this article along with any other editors that would like to help. My goal is a good-article assessment. DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is now listed as a Good Article. DrNegative (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hello! While I am a new editor, I wonder about changing biblical "story" to biblical "myth". Doesn't it violate NPOV? Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!} 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct and I reverted the edit. "Story" fits NPOV in this case as "Myth" (within the context of this article) strongly leads to a personal view or belief which is not allowed on Wikipedia. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Animation

No information on the actual animation process? The article goes from story to design to backgrounds to sound, skipping animation entirely. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditional animation which is displayed in the lead vastly covers the process of animation. This being a traditionally animated film, it would not deviate far from it I would assume. If you have any insight on the process that was special to this particular film, be bold. DrNegative (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for information on how the film was animated; there's no information on who animated the film and what particular techniques/technical challenges they encountered, as in the articles for Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. As such, I don't understand how this is considered a "good article". Telling me to "be bold" is fine and good (and if I get the time, I will), however, whichever editors consider themselves the main editors of this article would do themselves a service by covering their topic properly. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do not feel that this article meets the GA criteria, "be bold" and request a reassessment. Editors do not own articles and thus the primary responsibility of improvement belongs not to a "main editor" as you call it, but everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about owning articles either. However, usually, with an article of this legnth, someone or some people has/have already done some level of lead work in research, finding sources, etc. It would be a lot easier for all involved for those people to simply flip to what they already have available and make the proper adjustments. That was my point. However, after now looking at the reference list (which I should have done first) and seeing it's entirely made up of Googled web links, my point is very much invalid. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE DrNegative (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Enslavement

I noticed in the controversy section, it refers to the enslavement of the Hebrew people in a historical sense. From what I've been made aware of is that the Hebrew people/Jewish people were - historically-speaking - never actually an enslaved group. Or atleast the evidence only suggests that there were some individual Hebrew people were enslaved, but seemingly not as is portrayed either in the Bible or in this movie (since it is a first hand account by Moses, it puts it into context.) Is there a way to word these references better to reflect that? Check [[1]] just for reference. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)