This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 19 April 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:34, 19 April 2009 by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)For a more balanced presentation we could draw from the source below as well - instead from a single critical article as being currently done in the article.
Look at http://www.divineperformingarts.org/reviews/the-media
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cantabo07 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
NPOV etc.
Having a section called "criticism" demands having a section called "praise," in the interest of NPOV, which states that the relevant points of view be given air. It would be simpler to just have "Reception" and in there include all kinds of reception, rather than compartmentalising them. To give a clear example, what if we did not have a criticism section but just had "Praise"? Would that be neutral? So I think it's pretty clear. I'll restore it to how it was until we discuss.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think the proportion of praise/criticism at the moment is out of kilter; the ratio is clearly off centre. I suggest paring it right back to a short statement of each. Actually, I'm going to be bold and just do that.--Asdfg12345 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I realise I broke the tags,sorry, I just dont'w ant to deal with this now. I have to start doing other stuff. I'll fix it later. I am sorry. --Asdfg12345 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)