Talk:Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit

	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 Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Plans-330442.jpg[edit]

Image:Plans-330442.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 ensure 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) 14:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-05/entertainment/ca-64007_1_sister-act. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Biancamella (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negatively Received?[edit]

"The film received negative reviews from critics, earning a 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 28 reviews. Despite this, Goldberg was nominated for an MTV Movie Award for Best Comedic Performance." - Rotten Tomatoes was launched 5 years after this film was screened. Is that a very reliable reference? 81.145.152.5 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that one thing was "despite" the other is logically flawed, two separate things happened. I think Rotten Tomatoes can be a bit misleading because of the binary positive or negative system they use but I don't see any reason to remove it, and I have added Metacritic which also says the reviews were generally negative. A generous interpretation might summarize the reviews as mixed (and maybe someone could find a contemporary source that was more generous than Rotten Tomatoes was years later) but I think it is accurate to say the reviews were generally negative, various reviewers were critical of the lack of originality but in most cases the sentiment was more disappointment than actual dislike. I think the film has benefitted from endless tv reruns, it passes the time inoffensively and it was interesting to see Lauren Hill before she was famous. -- 109.76.203.156 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]