Talk:Look (2009 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
	This article needs an appropriate infobox template.

Too Many Pictures!

I think the article has too many picture of a single individual. Also, this is not an article about that individual, its about the play, no? Phearson (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the photos. What is the bias about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha3310 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the fix. Phearson (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there anything else that can be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha3310 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overcovered

This article has been overdone with reviews and the like and is dangerously leaving a proper WP:MOS And possibly WP:POV. Phearson (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit better? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha3310 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you. Phearson (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theresa Meeker and Alison Parson in Look.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Theresa Meeker and Alison Parson in Look.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Look (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, plot description, and broken links in references list

I looked at the references links while thinking about how to clean up the repeated sections and possibly make the description more factual. Most of them are broken and lead to "not found" pages. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I am leaving those to someone more experienced to address.

There is a full version of the film on the IMDB page, so I watched it. I can see how the plot description fits the content, but it is not necessarily clear or the only interpretation of the events.

I noticed that much of the text on the Wikipedia page matches the IMDB description exactly. I removed repeated language and kept the wording from the IMDB page. I am curious how this is usually addressed. I'm guessing copying source text exactly is not necessarily the best way to go, but it is clearly sourced from a source rather than original writing, so that is what I went with.

Given the few external references links, I am wondering if it meets the standards for notability.

Thank you! MyMiraImage (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]