Talk:Hard Target/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• 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 [1] 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? Y

   b (MoS):

2. 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):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)