# Talk:The Cincinnati Kid

After reviewing the article, I've failed its GA nomination.  Below is some advice and the issues I found in the article.  Of course, you are more than welcome to renominate the article at a later date if you improve upon the points below or believe my review to be in error.  I honestly think nominating this article for GA status was pretty premature, but here's some advice nonetheless.

The introduction is way to short.  Ideally it should give a brief summary of the entire article: points which are then expanded upon below.
The main image (Image:Cincinnati kid423.jpg) does not include a fair use rationale or cite its source.  Consider using Template:Non-free media rationale and Template:Information to address those issues.  Or, at the very least, address the points within the templates in text/bullet points of your own.
Speaking of the image (and I know this is picky but it kind of bothers me), why is the top third of the poster blank?  could you upload a version without that?  This isn't a requirement of GA nomination, just something odd that I noticed.
The article is referenced decently, but it could use some more.  Ideally, each new though should be accompanied by a reference.
The formating of the references is inconsistent.  My suggestion would be to use citation templates, though this is not required of a GA article.  What is required is some consistency.  The citation templates would help you towards that goal, since they do most of the work for you.
Also, there shouldn't be a space in-between a citation and punctuation.  So, this.  Not this. 
The Critical reception section should be expanded upon dramatically.  A single quote is insufficient.  Try Rotten Tomatoes or just search the internet for more reviews and professional opinion.
The Quotes section is unnecessary and should definately go.  If you want to put them somewhere, I'd recommend Wikiquote as a more appropriate place.
The DVD section also seems unnecessary, especially since the DVD seems fairly unremarkable.
Same thing with the Notes on play section, since it is basically a glorified trivia section, which is generally frowned upon.  But the good news is that that section in particular would be fairly easy to incorporate into the rest of the prose.
The Final hand section seems peculiar to me.  First of all it goes into too much detail about the hands.  To any non-poker player (like myself) it's just jargon and doesn't mean a thing.  I'm also not sure about putting the spades, clubs, etc. into the prose, not to mention the card color.  Although I don't know the typical format of writing about cards on Wikipedia, I would doubt that is typical.  You may want to look into that though, because I may be wrong.
It seems as if the article has a long way to go, but it is certainly not beyond help.  If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to bring them up here or on my Talk Page.  Good luck. Drewcifer3000 08:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro: expanded.
Image: new one uploaded, fair use rationale added.
References: disagree with assessment
Reference format: standardized with templates.
Citations: spaces removed.
Critical reception: expanded.
Quotes: disagree with assessment.
DVD section: disagree with assessment.
Notes section: disagree with assessment.
Final hand section: disagree with overall assessment. Added wikilink to one piece of jargon, the rest ("bet," "raise," "fold") is common parlance even to non-players. Card colors are generally colorized in card-related articles. Otto4711 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

The article has obviously come a long way since the last GA nomination only three days ago.  There are still some problems:

The references are consistently formatted now, but there are still a few missing.  This on its own wouldn't stop me passing the article for GA.
Drewcifer3000 was right about the quotes section.  Move it to wikiquote.
He was also right about the DVD section - it's not significant information about the subject of the article.
...and the Notes on Play section.  It needs to be incorporated elsewhere or got rid of.
The plot section is much too long - a brief plot summary is fine, but what's there now isn't brief.  Drewcifer3000 was right about the Final Hand section.
It's come a long way in a short time - I look forward to seeing it in a couple of days.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of the quotes (but have moved them to the talk page). I also disagree with the assessment of the DVD section. Why would an encyclopedia article about a film not want to include information on the DVD release? The notes and the plot objections are contradictory. The only place to incorporate the notes would be the plot summary, which you say is already too long. Speaking of which, I disagree that the plot summary is too long. Compare its length to that of Casablanca (film) which is a featured article. The Casablanca plot summary is approximately the same length as this one. Otto4711 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of the DVD section - this is an encyclopedia article.  If people wanted to know about commentaries and regions of releases they'd be at amazon.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that critique makes no sense. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Everything on Wikipedia is (supposed to be) available somewhere else so the notion that information that otherwise meets Wiki-policy and guidelines should be removed because it's available elsewhere is bizarre. Otto4711 21:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I didn't mean that we shouldn't include it because it's available elsewhere, I meant that the material isn't encyclopedic.  Good work on the references and the quotes, by the way.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What point of WP:NOT#DIR are you saying that DVD information fails? It's about a single item so it's not a repository of loosely associated items. It's not a genealogy or phone book. It's not a directory, program guide or resource for conducting business. It's not a sales catalog. Otto4711 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the DVD section is any of the things you list, I'm saying it's the one you didn't list: a directory entry.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - and one of the good article criteria, 3b, is that the article should be focussed.  An encyclopedia article about a film needs to talk about the film, not where you can watch it.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I did mention directory, and I disagree that a couple of sentences on the DVD release so unfocuses the article that it should fail GA status as a result. I again look at the FA Casablanca (film) which has sections on sequels and other versions, rumors, errors and quotes. If all of that can be in that article and it still qualifies as a FA then I can't see that the DVD section is so atrocious as to keep this article from being a GA. Otto4711 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall, I agree with the second assessment, I suppose because it mostly agrees with my initial review.  But, just to add to it, the new picture (which is much better by the way) doesn't have source information.  This would typically qualify an article for failing GA nomination just in itself, so you might want to take care of that.  Currently it says "unknown" for its source, which doesn't make much sense.  It didn't just appear out of nowhere.  So, I'd recommend fixing that first. Drewcifer3000 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And, while I'm at it, I think comparing this article to the Casablanca article is a good idea.  Plot section: they are fairly identical in size, but Casablanca's is maybe 1/5 of the article whole, this plot summary  is about 1/2 of the article.  Quotes section: Casablanca's quote section namely talks about quotations which are culturally significant or important for other reasons, not just cool things people said.  And, there is a link to a wikiquote page, as I recommended for this article.  There is not DVD section.  Production: Waaaaay bigger and broad in it's scope.  Reception section: Waaaaay bigger.  I recommended expanding that section in my first review, so you added one quote.  It's still entirely too small, not too mention just a collection (of two) quotes without any prose.  Honestly I think it's a stretch to compare the two articles since Casablanca is a vastly superior article, but since you brought it up I thought I'd compare them for the sake of argument. Drewcifer3000 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been away from this article for a while because frankly I'm a bit disgusted with the whole GA process, but just to respond to the Casablanca comparison, of course there isn't a one-to-one comparison but I somehow doubt that as Casablanca was being written it started out with its plot summary being 1/5 of the article. It was probably about 1/2 of the article, just like this one. But I'm not suggesting that this article become FA, just GA, and I'm not seeing anything in the GA guidelines that even addresses the notion of the length of plot summaries or the proper proportional size of a plot summary. Nor am I seeing anything in those guidelines that indicates a small section on the DVD so unfocuses the article that it can't exist. The Casablanca comparison is useful in this specific circumstance because it demonstrates that an article with a plot summary of similar size and level of detail has passed muster as a FA and calls into question the validity of citing the length of the plot summary in failing the article and also the validity of citing the DVD section. An FA can have a goofs section that amounts to a trivia section but a GA can't have two sentences on the DVD? As far as the critical reception section goes, I actually added more material but someone went in and removed some of it.
And just as a general note, I have to say that you have not been at all encouraging through this process. Otto4711 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If you really feel that way, that the last two reviews were in error or that we haven't been fair in some way, you can always take up the issue at Good Article review.  In fact, I'd encourage you to do so.  The people there are very experienced (more so than myself, I'll admit), and they'd probably give you a good idea where the article stands.  Of course, I'd restate my own issues with the article there, but that would allow my initial review to be reviewed as well as the article itself, which I'm all for.  Either way, I'm sorry if I've seem unencouraging - I have tried to suggest ways to address my concerns, but so far they've gone ignored or you've disagreed with them.  Which is why I think further review might be a good idea. Drewcifer 10:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
While I have disagreed with your overall assessment and on some specific points, I have also made a number of improvements to the article based on your feedback. The poster, increased the number of references, standardized the reference format, removed the quotes section (even though I disagreed with you on it), added material to the intro, production and critical reception sections, and so on. Otto4711 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Original post copied from my talk page
I would appreciate it if, either within the article or on the talk page, you would specify exactly what material you believe requires referencing. It seems well-referenced to me and in the absence of any further guidance I don't understand the validity of the criticism. Otto4711 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Otto.  As I said, the references on their own wouldn't have stopped me from passing this as a GA - it was the other stuff primarily.  As Drewcifer3000 says, though, ideally every new thought should have a reference.  Of the bits that are still short of references, two are from sections that need to be taken out anyway - the DVD section has no reference, and in the "Notes on Play" section the article says that open stakes are permissible in home games but never allowed in casinos - there's no citation for that.  The other two unreferenced points are that Ray Charles performed the theme tune, and the review from Halliwell's.  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree that these need to be removed from the article but I'm removing them anyway.

Slade: "How the hell'd you know I didn't have the king or the ace?"Howard: "I recollect a young man putting the same question to Eddie the Dude. 'Son,' Eddie told him, 'all you paid was the looking price. Lessons are extra.'"
The Kid: "Listen, Christian, after the game, I'll be The Man. I'll be the best there is. People will sit down at the table with you, just so they can say they played with The Man. And that's what I'm gonna be, Christian."
Howard: "It's a pleasure to meet someone who understands that to the true gambler, money is never an end in itself, it's simply a tool, as a language is to thought."
Lady Fingers: "How's it goin', Lancey?"Howard: "That young man is a stud poker playing son of a..." Lady Fingers: "He's gettin' to ya, huh Lancey?"Howard: "No, not yet he isn't."
Lady Fingers: "You raised his tens with a lousy three-flush?"Howard: "Gets down to what it's all about, doesn't it? Making the wrong move at the right time."
Otto4711 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am listing this for review. Otto4711 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing is complete. Otto4711 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


### Results of good article reassessment discussion
It looks like this was not handled in an ideal way, as the article PROBABLY should have been renominated at WP:GAN rather than WP:GAR since the prior nomination was somewhat stale (over a month old).  However, not being one to stand on procedure, the article seems to clearly meet all GA requirements now, so I am going to go ahead and list it.  The archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 30.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ckfilm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking how Sam Peckinpaugh would have butchered this idea. This isn't a Western poker game that ends in a shoot out.
Also,even t hough they were fellow Warner Brothers players, this was the first time Robinson&Blondell had been in a picture together since 1936's BULLETS OR BALLOTS. Perhaps she was cast at Robinson's suggestion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)