Talk:The Other Woman (2014 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Cap, I have to be honest with you, this article is teetering on a quickfail as it stands. There are parts that are good, but much of the writing and grammar is in need of a whole lot of work. Here's my review:

1. Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

Grammar issues litter the article, ranging from incomplete sentences ("Trio group together to take revenge from him") to nonsensical ("But studio wanted to get PG-13, because according to Box Office Mojo, the R-rated movies ever released, all could gross averaged just $7.8 million"). The lead, production, and release sections are by far the biggest offenders here, but it really is throughout the article. I would suggest taking this to WP:GOCE before nominating it again.

2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Small thing: review sections almost never need quote boxes, and this film most certainly doesn't. If anything, a quote box would be used to summarize opinion on the film overall, not for specific reviews.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   Every source's publisher is listed as the website name, rather than the name of the actual source. For instance, "nytimes.com" should be The New York Times, and in the "work" or "newspaper" section, depending on what template is used. This issue persists through almost all of the citations.

2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

"Film Music Reporter" (ref #1) doesn't have any establishment of reliability, and the website looks like an amateur blog. SNN Insider (ref #14) is used to state the start and end dates of principal photography, but only includes the start date.

3. it contains no original research:
3. Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

The plot section, though short, is far too detailed in many places. For instance, why is "(Carly refuses to call Amber "Mom")" essential to the plot? Then, things like what initially happens after Carly and Kate meet are glossed over. Things that are important to the plot go a bit to the wayside in favour of explaining specific gags, such as giving him breasts. Also, some information is just offhandedly tacked on to the end of completely unrelated sentences ("Through their pranks, they discover that Mark has been embezzling from various companies at his workplace and Carly begins to connect romantically with Kate's brother Phil"). Those two pieces of information do not belong in the same sentence.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Pass or Fail:

Cap, I'm going to level with you. I really think you need to try to find someone willing to collaborate with you and work on copyediting your articles. Your content is all very well-researched and thorough, but the writing in this article is a long way from where it needs to be. As you can see, most of my "no"s were in writing-related fields, with the exception of me having a few problems with some references and information. I'm going to put the article on hold for one week, and I would highly suggest you try GOCE or asking an editor to look over your work. Great information as always, and I couldn't admire your effort any more than I already do, but we've still got a good bit to go. Sock (tock talk) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Sock, I get this a lot, you're not first one. You see I'm not a native of English, so I've a little bit problem with the grammar and some other things in writing. But I'm always good in getting information and putting it all together. And don't mind but you're like hard on me, always, or it's just I feel. Now here, why would you say like "this article is teetering on a quickfail as it stands" and "I would suggest taking this to WP:GOCE before nominating it again?" And you can help me during the review with some sentences and prose, like other reviewers did with my other nominations. See below

• Talk:Dallas Buyers Club/GA1, in this reviewer helped me and I got the article from like-zero to GA. He helped me with details, grammar and prose.
• Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1, in this reviewer also helped a lot by pointing out all issues. And later we took the article to GOCE and requested for a copy-edit, because we both (nominator and reviewer) were not English-lang native. That's how we got the article to GA.
• Talk:Gravity (film)/GA2, here again the reviewer helped me by pointing out the prose and sentences. Addressing all issues, like which is wrong and how to correct it.

Why don't you? You already failed and discouraged me with Ride Along (film), when I was going to nominate it. Why dido I feel uncomfortable when I saw you are the reviewer, and why do I feel like this nomination is not gonna pass? Please don't mind my talking at all, just be a good reviewer and helped me in this. I'm not good in English but I'm trying. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cap, I'm not hard on you for personal reasons at all. I would be just as hard on any editor. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just informing you of my honest opinion. You seem to think I have it out for you, and I absolutely do not. I couldn't respect you more as an editor, you're considerably more passionate about this project than most editors I know, myself included. However, I think you rush into doing GA reviews. That much work, while capable of being done, should not have to be done. Ideally, GA nominations are presented when the article is at least very close to GA, but this article is not. I'm willing to help you along the way, but I stand by my recommendation of taking it to GOCE (I don't mean that in a mean way, I just think it would help) and the fact that the article has a lot of problems. GAN is not meant to improve an article up to GA; that's what peer reviews are for. I'm harsh because I feel I have to be. I can't judge your articles differently just because I like you and I think you're a good editor.

I can't make a list of everything that was issuous right now, but I will do my best to do so today or tomorrow. I will not fail the article until I've held up my end, so don't worry about the one week still applying if I fail to do what I'm saying I will. I hope I'm not creating any animosity, and I'm sorry that it makes you uncomfortable when I review your articles. I'm just harsh.

Last thing: I apologize for the whole Ride Along situation. I was unable to find the time to watch the film and help with the plot section, and I apologize for not being more proactive in finding someone who could've helped. I blundered there, and I'm sorry for that. I have some more free time now, so I'll try to get my hands on the film and give the plot section a rework. No promises, but I will try. Sock (tock talk) 17:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's okay Sock, I'm really glad you understand me. And I'm also sorry for being rude, directly. I can see mostly issues are pass here, you see the "Dallas Buyers Club" nom, which Tony reviewed, mostly issues were fail in the start there. But we, together did that. So you shouldn't discourage anyone, not just me, not anyone. You should start a review with passing possibilities in mind not failing. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: All right, I got the time to go through section-by-section, so here is a full list of improvements. I've gone ahead and made a lot of changes as well, but there are a few things I'll need your help on.

• The music section needs improved references, and preferably a collapsed track listing (look at something like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)#Soundtrack for an example of what I mean).
• The end of filming date (August 29, I think) is unsourced.
• Need a source for it being a box office success, or that information needs to be removed. Just state facts.
• Quotes should be integrated to reception, not in quote boxes.
• Betsy Sharkey's review doesn't have any real clarity on her opinion
• Separating negative reviews from positive would be good

Overall, we're pretty close. I hope you think my changes improved the article, and get back to me whenever you can. Sorry that this took so long! Sock (tock talk) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: It has now been over a week since my reply with detailed explanation as to what needs to happen, and nearly three weeks since I placed this article on hold. I've been lenient, but I will have to fail the nomination if you don't respond by tomorrow. Sock (tock talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Captain Assassin!, it's been 24 hours since my previous comment and nine days since my thorough review, and I still haven't seen any further changes. Unfortunately, I'll have to fail this article, as this nomination is stale. Please submit it to WP:GOCE and let one of their editors go through it in-depth, and work out some of the issues I've listed here. Sock (tock talk) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)