Fort Towson

	Hud (1963 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 20, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed July 11, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 1, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although Paul Newman (pictured) and director Martin Ritt conceived the eponymous lead of Hud as morally repugnant, they were astonished to find young audiences warming to the character?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Library of Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Westerns: Film Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Film task force. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 16, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on October 28, 2013.

Patricia Neal was 35 when Hud was shot. But here her character is described as "middle-aged". "Middle age" is generally understood to begin in the 40s, and is defined by Miriam-Webster as starting at age 45. Does Neal specifically play an older character, or are we defining "middle-age" down for women?

The bibliography used in the article defined the character as a middle-aged woman. The description may have to do with the fact that Alma was in her middle thirties and divorced. Nowadays that does clearly not indicate anything, but I guess that by the standards of the early 1960s society, she was maybe seen as middle-aged. Let's not forget that it was made clear throughout the film she had a turbulent relationship with her previous husband and a few years had gone by in-between that time and she working for the Bannon family.

Aside from whatever took anybody to say she was middle-aged, or to define whether she may or may not have been considered at the time so, I just erased the word from the article. I don't think there's too much need to look into that anyway. It may have been the opinion of the writer. Or it could just be that in the book "Halmea" was maybe older?

It should be mentioned by the way that Ravetch and Frank Jr. were really progressive writers for their time, and in my opinion did not intend to portray Alma in that light anyway. You can read their feelings about the character here.--GDuwenTell me! 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored an old version of the article since it was again written to contain essay-like phrases or personal opinions. We've been through this before and it was clarified in the first Good Article Nomination that it should be avoided. Forget not Wikipedia:No original research.--GDuwenTell me! 21:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]