# Talk:O' Horten

This review is transcluded from Talk:O' Horten/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Needs a complete synopsis, including the ending. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, the plot summary is now within the recommended range (400-700 words) and covers all major parts of the plot, including the ending. Lampman (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some comments & suggestions to improve the article:

directed by internationally acclaimed film-maker Bent Hamer - not very WP:NPOV, in my opinion.
I've included a reference from Variety on this; I think it's important to provide context for the uninitiated reader.
Someone who likes to have control over every detail of his life, on his way to make his last journey circumstances nevertheless conspire against him - I've read this over a few times and it still doesn't make sense to me; it doesn't seem like a complete sentence. Maybe it needs rewording?
Rewritten.
Italicise The Kingdom.
Yeah, I missed that one. It's actually a TV-series, so I used quotation marks.
Verdens Gang and Dagbladet both gave the movie five out of six point - "points"?
Included an explanatory ref.
Italicise Entertainment Weekly.
Done.
O' Horten was picked for the Un Certain Regard–section of the Cannes Film Festival - I think that should be a normal hyphen ( - ) not an endash.
Done.
This marked the fourth time Hamer was represented at Cannes - "fourth time that".
Done.
the slightly less prestigious Directors' Fortnight–category - again, maybe this dash should just be a hyphen.
Done. Lampman (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, everything looks good, and I'm keen to watch the film now! I'll put the article on hold for a week so good luck with making the changes. —97198 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref on the dice thing - what I was wondering, though, was if it should read "five out of six points" instead of "point"? And IMO The Kingdom should be italicised, as TV series generally are. See its main article. Everything else looks fine - it should be an easy pass if these issues are dealt with :) —97198 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, didn't notice that, just a silly little typo. Fixed. And you're right about TV-series of course, I was thinking of separate episodes. Fixed too. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. I'm happy to pass the article. —97198 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the movie, there was a sentence mentioning that Steinar is a troubled name. What was the meaning of this sentence said in the movie? What kind of troubling is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.101.2 (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 

I'm not completely sure how these quality scale things work, but good article is listed above B-class, and this article does not live up to the B-class criteria of at least six developed sections (not counting references and external links). Is this a mistake or can an article be rated as good just based on the quality in the four sections it has?Smetanahue (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria say nothing about number of sections, just that the article should be "Broad in its coverage" and address "the main aspects of the topic". It seems a bit superficial to me to assess the quality of an article by counting the sections, when layout of a shorter article can often be improved by combining some issues in the same section. For a GA it is more important that no major aspects are left out, and that the article is referenced with reliable sources. Lampman (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)