Talk:The Hustler/GA2

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

On the whole, the article is in good shape. It deals with all the major aspects of the film. While its missing distribution info, that isn't an issue for the GA nom (though it should be considered if the primary editors plan to later go for FAC). The biggest thing I noticed as issues with the prose, as noted below. It also has a few minor MoS issues, but nothing super major.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
There are a few places where the article jumps a bit from topic to topic with no transition. For example, in Production, the second paragraph opens with "Paul Newman was originally unavailable to play Fast Eddie...", but nothing in the first paragraph mentions him being considered or desired for the part. After noting someone else was hired, it notes that Newman was freed from his previous obligation and took the part. Was Darin simply fired when Newman became available? There are also a few places where sentences are worded awkwardly, causing problems with flow, such as three paragraphs in a row starting the same way. Has the article been copyedited?

B. MoS compliance:
Would also recommend using {{cite book}} for the list of book references
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Prose not fixed and nominator edit warred with the copy editor, preventing it this issue from being full addressed. As prose is an important part of any GA article, and the lack of response concerning a MoS issue, I feel this article is not ready for GA. I strongly urge the nominator to have the article copyedited, and be more receptive to the CE's edits and remarks, before renominating.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Updated 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me toward the specific sentences and paragraphs you're talking about as being awkward? Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire production section, really. It reads very stilted, as if it was put together in bits and pieces rather than one cohesive unit. In the plot, we have four paragraphs in a row starting with "Eddie...", which is visually distracting. The legacy section has similar issues as the production section. The first and fourth paragraphs seems more like review/reception info, while the rest feel like bullet points without the bullets. If you need help finding a copyeditor, let me know.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've switched up the starting words in some of the plot paragraphs to break up the Eddie Eddie Eddie. The production section was put together out of bits and pieces pulled from a number of sources. I'll be adding a bit more to it shortly. Regarding the legacy section, the reason I put some review information there was to illustrate that the film's reputation has persisted. The critical response section focuses on contemporary reviews while the legacy section focuses on more recent reviews to make the point. I could certainly combine the 'unbulleted bullet points' into a single paragraph; the reason I separated them out was the same reason that I separated the awards by type. If you want to sic a copy editor on the article, feel free. I'll continue to work on it as well. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll see if I can find a copyeditor to give it a once over. Its almost always a god idea to hav a second set of eyes giving it a read over (and will it will be a benefit later if you decide to go for FA later). :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded a bit on the whole Darin situation, which I think smoothes the section a bit as well. Otto4711 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great (though man, that was cold of them :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm currently reading the article from the bottom up, and I haven't yet made it past "Notes". According to WP:LAYOUT, the section heading "notes" is for footnotes, or additional commentary on the Wikipedia content. The list of "notes" here seems to me to be more appropriately called "references". The section called "references" should, as a list of books that were used in the article's formation, be called Further reading. I'll continue towards copyediting, on glance the prose looks very good. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of section headings? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are using a form of the Harvard system, with the books "References" being used in "Notes" in short form with just the last name, page number. The headers do need adjusting though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions: "Notes" is for footnotes containing source citations or commentary on the main text. "References" is a list of referenced materials (books, websites, etc. cited in the main text). I have been advised repeatedly in other GA nominations that "Notes" should be used for the specific citations (e.g. <ref>Dyer p. 136</ref>) and that "References" should be used for the books used as reference material within the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you will on this article. I'm no longer willing/able to contribute to it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then, have a pleasant day! Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]