Talk:The Insider (film)

message: Jeffrey Wigand is mentioned as a tobacco executive, while he was the Vice Pres of R&D I am not sure if this means he is an actual executive, the movie makes him out as more of the head scientist and not the stereotype of an executive.  It just seems a little misleading to me and might want to be re-phrased even if he was an actual executive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colincwilson (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffrey Wigand job description 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:IPROMO2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:IPROMO2.JPG

message: I've removed the Trivia section as it is unsourced and is discouraged by Wikipedia. I've put it here until it can be integrated in other sections of the article.--J.D. (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: IMDb says $68 millions while Boxofficemojo says $90 millions . What to believe?--Ezzex (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production budget ?? 

message: :I putting these links here until their content can be integrated into the article and properly cited.--J.D. (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: Despite the appearance of the related diff, I've not made a wholesale replacement of the entire section.
However, since I made so many small changes, I found it easy and simple to copy the old text to my sandbox, work on it, and then copy my result to the plot section.
The farther I looked into the previous version, the more errors and inaccuracies I found, so I continued slugging away.
As always, please feel free to raise one or more questions.
Best wishes to all,
Doc.  DocRushing (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A revision of the section about the plot 

message: The 'Production' section was added mostly in one edit about a decade ago by J.D.. Unsourced then, and barely sourced now, I've added a tag and removed some non-notable/unsourced stuff but I'm not sure the whole section shouldn't be removed. I don't believe sources not forthcoming after so long are very likely to be added now. Thoughts anyone? ElectricalTill (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production sources 

message: This article has been checked against the project's criteria for B-Class status:
# Referencing and citation:  criterion not met
#:"Production" and "Awards" are mostly unsourced.
# Coverage and accuracy:  criterion met
#:Most of the key elements are there, though some areas could do with expanding.
# Structure:  criterion met
#:Generally ok.
# Grammar:  criterion not met
#:The plot summary is overly long and could do with a thorough copyedit.
# Supporting materials:  criterion met
#:Ok but would benefit from some additional images.
There is still quite a bit of work to do on this article before it meets the B-Class criteria, with referencing being the main concern. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film for guidance on writing about films. PC78 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class review for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film|WikiProject Film]] 31 July 2016