Talk:Hey, Hey, It's Esther Blueburger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, Hey, It's Esther Blueburger was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 22, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Flag
Portal
Hey, Hey, It's Esther Blueburger is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian cinema.

[edit] Requesting Semi-protection

Someone using an unregistered ISP keeps adding unconfirmed and seemingly fictitious cast members, particularly one "alex degaris-boot" (apparently, he doesn't capitalise the first letters in his name), who seems to get a new role every time he's added... can we perhaps semi-protect the page and stop unregistered users from editing this page for a while? misanthrope 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also auditioned for this movie, and i believe toni collete is the mum, mrs blueburger. i may be wrong, can someone please confirm? jh

[edit] GA nomination review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The plot section looks like it was copy and pasted from IMDB or a similar site; it is absolutely not in Wikipedia style.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    IMDB does not qualify as a reliable source.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It is too short at this stage to evaluate whether it will stay focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    The movie has not been released yet; information will change after release as more sources are published.
  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):
    Only image is the movie poster in the infobox, which is probably okay without a caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Until the movie is releases, GA status is premature. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)