User talk:2601:3C9:8201:A406:CC95:69E1:DC2:970

Love Actually
I find your edits to Love Actually interesting. I think you are making your changes in good faith and the film has a Legacy that is worth exploring, perhaps in a subsection. The film was released in 2003 and fifteen years later in 2018 people have different opinions about the film and are looking at the sexual politics from a different perspective. The last paragraph of the Critical response section already begins exploring this idea and already lists many sources (which mostly seem to be from 2013) but doesn't expand the text very much. I don't like the exact way you expanded the text from Christopher Orr but I think I can see why you did it.

The 2017 article from The Independent is a good start, but I don't think other sources are particularly good, and I think by including lesser sources to make the point it came across as WP:POLEMIC. I think sources where professional film critics review the film again such as Orr would be better than comments from non-critics if you can find them. Academic analysis of the film would be ideal if you can find any.

I can see how some editors might not want to give WP:UNDUE weight and unbalance the Critical response section and get in the way of the contemporary reviews, so I think it would be worth discussing a separate section such as Legacy for the reviews that have come 10 or 15 years after the film was released.

I think it is at least worth more discussion than a few brief edit summaries, and if you think so too then I'd suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. Explain what you think would improve the article, so others who agree with your idea but not the exact way you did it might be able to suggest other ways to do it. Maybe also try to explain why you chose the reference you did, or suggest other sources that might be better. Follow the next steps on the BRD CYCLE essentially. -- 109.76.146.164 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)