Talk:Hard Target/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Okay, the article is good to me. WP:REFS are neat.
 * It would be better to put the templates down the box office number one films.

Cheers, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd Opinion
Ref #32 leads to a login page so does not support the assertion, needs formatting to indicate that this is a subscription archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should pay more attention. I didn't know this was even reviewed. That's weird about the subscription. It doesn't say that for me and I don't have a subscription. Hmm. Either way, I've added your notice. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Prose OK, I made a couple of minor copy-edits. One statement in the Post-production section doesn't make sense to me: Woo was contractually obligated to release a NC-17 rating by Universal Pictures. When submitting the film to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), it was judged as too violent and intense for an R rating and received an NC-17 rating. This appears contradictory. Woo was contracted to make a NC-17 film and got that rating - so what is the sentence about?
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * References all live, all check out. I assume good faith for print sources.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources appear reliable
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Ok, I would like you to look at the sentence cited above, apart form that, all OK. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I've fixed that now. They wanted an R rating. the NC-17 is a type-o. I've fixed that. Anything else? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for all of your hard work. I am happy to judge that this article is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Ok, I would like you to look at the sentence cited above, apart form that, all OK. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I've fixed that now. They wanted an R rating. the NC-17 is a type-o. I've fixed that. Anything else? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for all of your hard work. I am happy to judge that this article is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I would like you to look at the sentence cited above, apart form that, all OK. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I've fixed that now. They wanted an R rating. the NC-17 is a type-o. I've fixed that. Anything else? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for all of your hard work. I am happy to judge that this article is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)