Jump to content

Talk:The Other Woman (2014 film)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'll be reviewing this for GA after "Five Short Graybles". Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC) After taking a look at Talk:The Other Woman (2014 film)/GA1, I've found that the article looks a lot better in general, especially on prose issues after the reviewer did a copyedit themselves. Anyways, I think it'll pass this time around. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, I don't think that the dates for casting are that important--could you find something else to say about the casting period?
  • You should probably say when filming wrapped up in the lead as well.
  • Because there's a lot of reviews in this article, I would recommend that you put some of the reviewers' main criticisms of the film in the lead as a way of giving the reader more information early on.
  • "a man she had sex with eight weeks prior" What happened between then and now?
  • "blow his cover" is a bit informal.
  • "using Kate as the owner of the companies he defrauded, which if discovered would result in her going to prison." I'm sorry, what? He pretended that Kate was the owner of the companies he defrauded? How did the companies not notice this? Also, the sentence is stilted, so even if this is the case, you should change the wording.
  • In the next sentence, I wouldn't put "another" in italics.
  • Is the last paragraph of the plot summary an epilogue-type thing? If it is, I would specify that, because currently, it seems like this part still takes place in the film's main time frame.
  • In the Cast section, I would change/expand the image's caption a bit: maybe "the partial cast of The Other Woman (from left to right): Kate Upton, Cameron Diaz, and Leslie Mann."
  • The "Development" and "Casting" subsections read basically just like a list of dates--there doesn't really seem to be much more substance in the sources, so I would avoid similar sentence constructions (On ____…), and instead mix things up a bit. Let me know if you need help doing that.
  • I've helped you here. Let me know how that looks.
  • "Isola Trattoria and Crudo Bar…" Wait, is this "celebration toast" in the film or like a wrap party? Either way, I'll have some sentence structure comments, but just tell me which one it is.
  • Alright, I've decided to fix this myself.
  • The soundtrack.net source does not report there being any soundtrack albums, but you refer to it as such. Why so? If an album was released, please include a track listing.
  • Because the film technically only had one true "premiere", I would change the wording--world premiere, UK premiere, and US premiere, respectively.
  • There' nothing in the source that specifically says that they sought a lower rating because of those specific numbers, although they probably did to have more audience members in general. However, I wouldn't speculate about any of this, so take that clause out.
  • I would change that "but" to "however," and remove the "so" that starts the next sentence. It makes it less informal.
  • A rating isn't really an "award", so maybe just "gave" is better.
  • Replace that period with a semicolon: "the film with a PG-13; the sources confirmed…" Also, was it just one source or multiple? Either way, specify.
  • The Other Woman was released on April 24, 2014 in the Netherlands and on April 25 in the United States." Sources?
  • I find this to be a funny place to put "home media"--I'm used to seeing it at the end of the article. In this style, it should probably be a section of its own at the end.
  • What's "Giggle Fit"?
  • In the lead (and at the beginning of the critical reception section) I'm not looking for one specific review: I'm looking for the general criticisms of the film. Was it the plot? Characters? Style of comedy? Acting? Directing? All of these? Also, group all negative and positive reviews together. Because the movie had very negative reviews, put the negative reviews first. Also, within the positive reviews, were there any aspects of the film that positive critics generally liked?
  • I've never seen a review mentioned in the lead, I used to put just the review result. If you want it that way, can you specify which one should be put in the lead and at the beginning of the critical reception? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Berardinelli review doesn't really give us a sense of what he thought…more?
  • I don't think that one word of the Roeper review does it justice, especially because this is Roeper we're talking about. Also, the word "brutal" could be used in a review of a positive film (i.e. "brutal in its honesty"), but you should add a quote that shows that it's negative.
  • For the references, don't put the web addresses (i.e. nytimes.com, time.com), instead, in the work field, put The New York Times and Time), etc. For publications that are primarily known by their web domain (e.g. Soundtrack.net), keep it, but everything else has to be changed. The references look good in terms of reliability.
  • I feel as though there are too many external links, and not all of them are really necessary for the reader. If you really want to keep all of them, you can, but I would remove the Turner Classic Movies and AllMovie ones.

@Captain Assassin!: Alright, I'm done. Good work! It shouldn't be too long before I can pass. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Assassin! Just wanted to let you know that I'm putting this article on hold for seven days. There's really not much to correct, but be sure you catch these comments in time! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenLinus1214: Please review my comments and answer some questions. Thank you. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: Just a few more comments to go. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenLinus1214: Hopefully done. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: Good work! I can pass now. :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Other_Woman_(2014_film)/GA2&oldid=1127484309"