Talk:The Hudsucker Proxy/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Release: The studio suggested re-shoots, but the Coens, who held final cut privilege, obliged because they were very nervous working with their biggest budget to date and were eager for mainstream success. but.... they obliged?, surely a typo here?  Otherwise all OK
 * b (MoS):
 * Confroms sufficiently
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Well referenced, all on-line links are live. I assume good faith for print sources. Ref #11 directed to the wrong article, but I fixed it with this.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * all sources RS
 * 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:
 * J ust one minor point in the prose, I didn't want to change it as I don't have access to the source. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK all fixed now, congratulations this is now being listed as a good artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, fixed. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * J ust one minor point in the prose, I didn't want to change it as I don't have access to the source. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK all fixed now, congratulations this is now being listed as a good artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, fixed. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * J ust one minor point in the prose, I didn't want to change it as I don't have access to the source. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK all fixed now, congratulations this is now being listed as a good artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, fixed. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, fixed. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)