This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
You cannot use IMDb as a WP:reliable source, especially since it makes no connection between the two films. Heck, even the 17 viewer reviews of Man Wanted and eight of Office Wife don't mention the other film at all. Nor can you cite someone who puts out a newsletter. TCM specifically states Office Wife is based on a novel by Faith Baldwin, while Man Wanted comes from a story by Robert Lord. Did Lord "borrow" Baldwin's plot? Wouldn't be the first time, but that's simply unsourced speculation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This blog post – which, of course, also cannot be used as a reliable source (see WP:SPS – does a pretty good comparison between the two films. It specifically says that Man Wanted is not a straight remake of The Office Wife, but makes the claim that there are comparable scenes between the two films. This is, obviously, the bloggers opinion, as no sources are cited connected the two, and I don't find the claim to be particularly strong. I think the blogger is much closer to the mark when he calls Man Wanted "generic and familiar". In truth both films are pretty generic, and Warners and the other Hollywood studios of the time was more concerned about churning out product than anything else. Those films were considered to be pretty ephemeral, and no one could have predicted a future in which even Grade Z films would be studied, compared and contrasted.In any case, as Clarityfiend rightly says, you can't put anything into the article comparing the two films until you get a citation from a reliable source which makes the comparison. BMK (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
