Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Top Hat/1

Top Hat

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Top_Hat/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept Issues raised appear to be have addressed. AIR corn (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm amazed I'm putting this up for GAR now and not after it was promoted. Nothing has significantly changed in the article when it was promoted, with the expection on a clean-up tag added after it recieved its GA status. So because of that, the article has so many problems like its failure of 1.B in the criteria and unreliable sources used like IMDB. GamerPro64 16:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also see bare urls that need completing. Chris857 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The bare urls are easy to fix and I only see one link to IMDB, which should be replaced. There is the references tag for the DVD releases (recently noted on the talk page by me) and the references could do with some better formatting. This should be fixable, have the major contributors and Wikiprojects been notified? AIR corn (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikiprojects I have notified. I did not notify the user that promoted it to GA status as he was an IP and haven't edited the site since 2010. I also notified User:Hamiltonstone about the reassessment due to him being the one who promoted it. GamerPro64  01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just checking. AIR corn (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the template links in your notifications. Hope you don't mind. AIR corn (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Its alright. Didn't know that there were problems to them. GamerPro64  01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the style, the structure and the layout of this article. NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Its been over a month since a comment has been made. Is there any consensus on this? GamerPro64 14:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully clear on the remaining issues, but I'll be glad to try to address them. Am I correct in understanding here that what's needed is just a replacement of one IMDB citation, a reference for the DVD, and replacement for two bare URLs? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replaced the bare URLs, the IMDB citation, and added a citation to the DVD section, removing the tag. I didn't immediately turn up confirmation of the details on the 2003 UK DVD release, but this doesn't seem like the kind of controversial claim that requires a citation per criterion 2b. Let me know if this addresses the concerns; I'm not an expert on this movie, but it seems a shame to de-list if we can easily fix the problems instead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)