Talk:The Cincinnati Kid

message: 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.1  Not this. 1
*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)
thread_title: GA fail

message: * 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)
thread_title: GA issues

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: references

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quotes 

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

message: Listing is complete. Otto4711 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R#The Cincinnati Kid|Good article review]]  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Results of [[WP:GAR|good article reassessment discussion]] 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ckfilm.jpg