Talk:The Hunted (1995 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) 13:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead is pretty short for a good article but that is probably the result of the overall coverage of the article, that I will touch on further down. Minor concerns with the use of clichés like "a score to settle", "finish off", etc. Lastly, do not use the phrase "mixed-to-negavtive", mixed already implies that it received some negatives reviews.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): but I would prefer to see more WP:THIRDPARTY sources instead of the DVD commentary. c (OR): Although obviously true, the cast section and other easily verifiable content is unreferenced. The phrase "mixed-to-negative" in the lead conflicts with statement that it was "mostly panned" in the reception section, which BTW is an unreferenced statement. d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Major pieces of information are missing from the article. While the production section does offer filming locations, there is no information as to when this occurred. More importantly, there is no information beyond that. Filming is only one step in the stages of filmmaking. There is no information on how the film came to be through concept, writing, casting, editing, etc. 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: I do not normally like to fail articles off the bat, but the article needs considerable expansion. There is just too much missing information for me to place it on hold. Please do not let this discourage you and keep up the hard work. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, I do not normally pass articles this short but I will pass this one with advice from my fellow editors on a majority good faith basis that Daß Wölf (talk · contribs), the nominator and significant contributor, has exhausted all reasonable efforts to find sources for this decades old film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: With respect, I don't think this article merits a quick fail. WP:GACR states: 'The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.' While this article doesn't cover every major fact (casting, etc.), one needs to take into account that this film is not a Hollywood production and was made in a time when filmmaking news coverage was much harder to come by (no celeb blogs and the like). For example, the film is not mentioned in any books on Google Books, except in capsule reviews. I feel I've done pretty good research on web-based sources, and while I think there is probably more information to be had, it's probably only a few tidbits in a local newspaper, inaccessible to me because I'm on the wrong continent. While the article could use the expansion, I cannot add information that isn't available, and which would probably only make for another paragraph or two anyway. As such, while it may or may not fulfill the broad coverage criterion (I argue it does), it's certainly not "a long way from meeting" it (per quick fail criterion #1). Thus, I would like to ask you to reconsider this decision. Daß Wölf 00:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GVF: A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points. Unfortunately, I don't think the main points have been met and I don't feel comfortable passing such narrow coverage. The good thing is that I am not the sole arbiter of good articles. If you still feel that you have covered everything that one can reasonably cover then feel free to renominate it or I can ask for a second opinion. Again thank you for your hard work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I hope I didn't come on too strong, but getting quick failed after three months of waiting, deservedly or not, is quite disheartening. I would prefer to hear a second opinion. Daß Wölf 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a second opinion. This is one case, where I truly wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Good luck!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to err on the side of @TriiipleThreat: in terms of the article needing slight expansion, but merely slight. The article overall reads very well, but there are some elements that could be added to expand or better organize information. One thing I think could be changed is the "Production and release history" section, which I feel would better serve the article if broken into two separate sections, as the production and the film's release are two very different things. That said, depending on the film, sometimes there is not enough information to warrant that. I don't know if that is the case with this film, but it is a frequent problem. Also, in the lead, it is noted that "The Hunted was released on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray" but there is no mention of who/what company released it, or when—it's minor things like that that I think would make a difference. Also, this may just be a personal stylistic preference, but for film articles I tend to think that there should be a separate section for home media (DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) as it is different from a theatrical release, especially as DVDs and Blu-rays receive updates, new editions, etc.; it is easier to follow in my opinion. That said, if the film has a short home media release history, it may not be necessary. --Drown Soda (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Drown Soda, sorry for the wait, I managed to miss this on my watchlist. I've added the distribution companies and separated Production and Release, although they're both still pretty short; I felt having such short sections would impede the flow. As for home media, I'm not sure what else can be added. I could list all the extras, but I think that would be violating WP:UNDUE, as there are probably a lot of different language DVD & VHS releases that would be hard to track down. Daß Wölf 01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The main thing that feels missing to me is the lack of production history, casting, and the like. We have filming for the production section and that's basically it. I'm not asking for paragraphs upon paragraphs there, but is there really nothing out there in regards to development or casting? It's a little hard to believe to me. Wizardman 15:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Lawton wrote the script to this before some of his other works [1], which might be worth a mention. Not much there but even bits of info like that would go a long way. Wizardman 15:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've added it. I agree, but I'm having a hard time extracting information online about this film. I also scoured a bunch of Lawton's interviews available online, but mentions of The Hunted are few and far between. Daß Wölf 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything harmful with citing home media versions of this movie as a reference as TriiipleThreat would say, considering a lot of articles I've read here (whether GA or FA) have used it as a reference. If you have a DVD/Blu-ray of this movie (legit, that is), perhaps you could cite its "production notes" featurette to expand the production section. Please take into account that I don't advice you to purchase it for the sake of this GA entry – clearly that's up to you. I'm as shocked as Wizardman to find out that there's not much about this film online, but I laud you for your work on this article. Best of luck going forward. Bluesphere 06:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I rented the DVD back when I was writing the article and I did cite the featurette, but it was pretty bare-bones, about 5-6 on-screen pages in huge letters, and most of it was actor bios and similar fluff. Daß Wölf 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd opinion comment If you have made an honest attempt to find sources and no one else can find any either then I am personally of the opinion that some leeway should be given. I do understand where everyone is coming from, but I think there is enough there to pass this article on the broad criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @TriiipleThreat: I think we have enough opinions (thank you all :) ). I'd like to end this review and I'm willing to go with what you decide. Daß Wölf 18:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If it is of the opinion of my fellow editors that Daß's good faith efforts are satisfactory enough to pass this article then I will gladly lend my support.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Procedural note. This assessment is 6 months in the queue. It appears that Triiiple and Aircorn are in agreement on "Broad" here if Triiiple wishes to pass it. Otherwise, it may be time to allow someone else to renominate the article if or when further reliable sources are needed or become available. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: If you can address my other concerns, particularly the unreferenced cast section, I will go ahead and pass this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, I've addressed your points to the best of my knowledge. I can't help much with informal language in the plot as English is not my first language, so it's a bit hard for me to tell which phrase is a cliché. Please let me know if I missed anything (the hardest writing to proofread is one's own). I've also referenced the cast, although I really do not see the point of doing so in a 22-year-old film which received a wide release in theatres, as well as several home media releases. Did you have something else in mind here? Daß Wölf 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I was mostly referring to the unreferenced cast section that you appeared to have addressed. However, we should always use WP:THIRDPARTY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources when we can. After a very quick google search, I found this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Done (ping). Daß Wölf 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)