Talk:Saved!
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saved! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suggestions
editI find the description of Hilary Faye a bit off. First there is no source for her being "racist" so please add one. Also fundamentalist is a hard word. You are really talking about her conservative values which stem from religion. The term fundamentalist is more often used to describe the Sola Stripture, earth in 6 days christian. Nothing in the movie showed that she was a fundamentalist. Oh yeah and when did she worship in the movie? I don't remember that part either. As for patrick being sweet, and whatever else, definitely one sided. Needs changing to be NPOV. Chooserr 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and all the links are biased too... Chooserr 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Still disputed?
editIt seems to me that the criticisms in this talk page have been addressed in the current version of the article. The "Analysis" section to which people have objected is not present. The "Criticism" section appears to me to be perfectly appropriate: brief, representative, and sourced. Is the neutrality of the article, in its present form, still disputed? Capedia 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed it and cleaned up the article as well. Berserkerz Crit 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, how is this performing poorly?
editAccording to this article, Saved! had a budget of 5,000,000 and grossed 10,000,000, making it a money-doubling investment. That really doesn't sound too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.234.73 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's all a matter of how you look at it. It certainly wasn't a blockbuster by any means, but saying that it performed poorly without any cite does seem to be POV. I'm going to remove that part until someone provides a source that characterizes the box office performance as poor. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight in "Reception" section
editThe section begins by citing the "mixed reviews" (60/40) from Rotten Tomatoes, but then goes on to include several sentences citing the most glowingly positive reviews and only one mediocre negative review. 67.233.238.6 (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)