Talk:Then She Found Me

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novel?

This page may have started as a page for the novel, but now it's clearly about the movie. The associated 'stub' links need to be changed.

I'll try to find someone interested in contributing something about the significance of the Hillman paper on betrayal to the genesis of the film. Also, a friend and I are cleaning-up editable copies of the paper for hand-outs to friends for screening discussions. If it turns out to be possible to do so without violating copyright or to get permission from the author to do so, it would be great to link a clean copy of the paper to this review and related discussion. -- JOWhitlock 20081122 0748 GMT-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOWhitlock (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good link for the Hillman article on-line is: http://www.blacksunjournal.com/psychology/18_betrayal-part-1-of-3-by-james-hillman_2001.html --JOWhitlock (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "critical" reviews all include quotes and URLs from other web sites. Isn't that against Wiki guidelines? Also, the reviews are all positive. Isn't that biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallow73 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked as to whether the reviews are repreentative, but they are definitely reviews by major media organizations and should not be removed. Please feel free to add quotations from negative reviews if appropriately sourced. The quotes and URLs are not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination and should not be removed. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on the book

There were two sections on the book upon which this is based. One was pure original research and I removed. The other may be valid if sourcing can be found, which I doubt, but I will give it another day or so before removing. Sections on the book or fidelity to the book should not be given excessive weight in this article. It is commonplace for films to not be faithful to books. Harping on that too much skews this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

The critical reception section is disgustingly unbalanced. Thefilm got a 50% on RT, not a 95%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.130.118 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]