Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Hustler (film)/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- Result: No action. Reviewers did not endorse the fail, but did not recommend listing it either. Renomination is therefore encouraged. Geometry guy 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was failed solely because the reviewer didn't like the format of the cast section, suggesting that it be placed in a table under the reasoning that all FA and GA articles have their cast lists in tables. However, per the comment posted to the review page about an hour after the article was failed, many FA articles don't have their cast lists in a table format and some don't have cast lists at all. I disagree that a table is warranted and I don't think from an aesthetic viewpoint it benefits the article. I asked the reviewer on his talk page to reconsider the fail. Given that he has since edited the GA fail template on the talk page and left it failed, I can only assume that he has declined my request to reconsider. I'm hoping that this can be dealt with quickly and won't drag on for a month as these reassessments so often do. Otto4711 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article should not have been failed because of the Cast list. It is a minor thing and if Limetolime had felt it was that key to being listed, all he had to do was reformat it himself and pass the article. I applaud Limetolime's interest and motivation in reviewing GANs, but I am very concerned about his process. I have made suggestions to him about vital areas on which to focus, but I'm not seeing much improvement.
- That said (and this has no bearing whatsoever about the validity of the concerns expressed above), I think to go to GA the article should expand its Production section (there's got to be some good material out there), clean up the passive voice a bit, and add a section on music if applicable. Other than those straightforward items, this is a good article (sourced, pretty well written, broad in coverage (except for light Production), and interesting).
Jim Dunning | talk 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the cast list is not a big issue and in broad terms, I agree with JimDunning: the review is not particularly good, and Limetolime might benefit from mentoring, but the article still has quite a few genuine GA issues. In particular the prose and lead need some work. For example the last sentence of the lead sounds like trivia (and I was tempted to delete it), but on reading the legacy section, this is not so clear. Now, we can either hammer out these issues at GAR (which may take a while), or we can simply close this as no action and recommend renomination (which may or may not take a while). The nominator may have a preference, which I think we should take into account. Geometry guy 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with closing this and renominating. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW I've expanded the last sentence of the lead and eliminated some of the passive voice. I've searched for additional sources online in about four different databases and am not finding anything else about the production or about the music (which is too bad because the music is great). There's a book on Rossen's films that I'm going to try to get from the library. I agree the production section would benefit from additional information but I do think it's a pretty decent overview of the main points.
- Comment - I'm not going to oppose the reassessment, but I would like to clear everything up. I didn't have much time to leave a thorough reason, so I left it at the Cast section. More later, gotta go. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)