This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please change "min." to "minutes" as there is no need to abbreviate the word. Abbreviations should be avoided, clarity is more important. Why is this article locked anyhow? -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a Homeward Bound II Review on The Washington Post and it is being used to verify that Homeward Bound II got mixed reception. This review is poorly written; It contains too many unnecessary words and I couldn't find what the critic felt about the movie. Instead, the critic decided it was much more important to shove as many nonsensical phrases as possible. This includes too many adjectives as well as phrases where almost every word begins with the same letter. I do not think this review is a reliable source and needs to be deleted from the Homeward Bound II Wikipedia article. In-Correct (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleting sources is not the answer.
There seem to be many film articles where editors have added references to reviews but not actually used the reviews to say anything about the film. Editors should try to take these reviews and paraphrase the reviews, using them to comment on the film.
The alliteration and style of the first Washington Post review is pretty poor, and for the most part the review is a tedious summary of the story. It is clear the reviewer didn't like the film and I guess they are inflicting horrible prose on the reader as revenge. The last paragraph contains something close to an actual attempt to critique the film, paraphrasing: Rita Kempley of The Washington Post says children may enjoy the arguements of the main characters, and may even find them witty but to adults the voice work is unappealling.
The second review is again largely a recap of the story and the final paragraph contains a favourable review, which could easily enough be paraphrased and included in the article. I'd have done it by now if the article wasn't locked. (Frankly forcing everyone to get user accounts would be better than having so many articles locked reasons that aren't very clear.) -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)