The whole point of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT is that articles must represent the published opinions on the matter, not the editors' opinions. is "rubbish." By the way, editors do not get choose what to include and what to ignore in such a broad fashion. I am not sure why you are saying that all of the film criticism on E.T.Alientraveller 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Reply But your POV accusation is bizzare, and I'll ignore it. Nonetheless, I'll try to expand the themes section. I tried looking up other sources, including one Bignole sent to me, but it was sheer rubbish.Awadewit | talk 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply 2d - "consistently formatted inline citations" - The footnotes are not consistently cited.Spielberg should not be given priority here (see intentional fallacy). Statements such as The film is a reflection of Steven Spielberg's childhood are POV. 1d - There is a slight POV in this article.Thus the variety of interpretations of the film, the explanations of the film's meaning and a history of its iconographic status in American society are lost. In the "Themes" section (which I am happy to see has been added), for example, the editors have ignored all of the film criticism written by scholars on this film. 1b and 1c - ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge." - The article does not use the most reliable sources.That has not yet been reached here please find a good copy editor who has not worked on this article to review it.
#Will amok dvd shrinker 1.50 work on windows 8.1 professional#
1a - "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" - While I feel that is very difficult to achieve "brilliant" writing on wikipedia (too many editors, too many restrictions on the prose style), I do feel that a "professional standard" is achievable.Awadewit | talk 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Reply But there you are, a very fine article in my book. I learnt a lot from this article, particularly because I knew next to nothing about the film, having only seen it once. I wouldn't have supported it at the start of its FAC, but the recent changes to the structure and cutting back of FU images is good in my mind. Posting Gran2's comments so that it is easy to read them: " I personally feel that this article is as comprehensive as it needs to be. Support - per my reasoning in the previous FAC.Alientraveller 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply Nom restarted ( old nom) Raul654 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply Oh come on. The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007. No further edits should be made to this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 1.65 Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery.1.62 Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express.1.53 Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident.1.52.1 Lead section comments from Kalyan.1.52 Geology of the Lassen volcanic area.1.40 Structural history of the Roman military.1.38 Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision.1.37 Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven).1.36 Introduction to general relativity.1.34.2 Comments from Cas Liber (and page break for ease of adding).1.24 Super Nintendo Entertainment System.