User talk:Pellejuanner

Comments
I noticed some of your edits this evening and was a bit concerned with comments you have made in your edit summaries, such as "introductions need to be concise- further information should be in article, not opening", "poorly fotmatted intro- too much info--should be in article not opening", "too much info in opening, rephrased". I would direct you to read WP:LEAD, which outlines how the lead of an article is to be written:

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

Of particular concern is the "poorly fotmatted intro- too much info--should be in article not opening" comment regarding the Satyajit Ray article, which has been designated a featured article, one of the best on Wikipedia, which also means it meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in policies and guidelines for formatting, writing and style. I would also direct you to peruse MOS:FILM for information on the style guidelines proscribed for films. The changes you made to The 400 Blows changed the format of the article, which deviated from the proscribed format. If you have questions, please check with WP:HELP. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)