Talk:Being Tom Cruise/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are my initial impressions:
 * "who convinces him by smashing Cruise over the head with a shovel." In the intro it is not clear what Cruise is being convinced of.
 * "and hoists himself down to bed with her in a spoof of Mission: Impossible." The word "hoists" sounds strange here in the introduction, when the reader doesn't know the context. What happens in Mission: Impossible?
 * Brat Pack allusions - The several Brat Pack allusions are unclear, as Cruise is not mentioned as a Brat Pack member. What is the connections?
 * "In August 2007, the series was set to be remade into a new version in the U.S." - Was it made? This is three years later.


 * Some of the long quotes are repetitious - reprising information already given in the article, e.g. his marriages, Katy Holmes as a robot, etc. The second paragraph in the "Production" section is essentially a preliminary "Reception" section. Could you cut down on the repetitious quotations? I found the article interesting at first, as the subject is initially interesting and the film sounds funny. But so much repetition becomes dulling.
 * e.g. Four different place "hilarious" is quoted. Several places there are jokes about Cruise's height.


 * Does every reader know about Cruises appearance on the Oprah show and what they entailed? How many different places in the text should it be mentioned? I think one good mention would be enough, especially as not all reader will necessarily know what happened on Oprah.

That's all for now. Xtzou ( Talk ) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much for the above points. I will work on addressing them soon. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks again very much for your time and for doing the GA Review. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response
 * 1) Made this more clear in the lede, per above suggestion from GA Review.
 * 2) Removed this from the lede, as not necessary in summary of the article.
 * 3) Made this more clear, with added reference from article Brat Pack (actors), per suggestion from GA Review.
 * 4) I was not able to find any sources on this. If you come across any, I would most appreciate it.
 * 5) Made the second paragraph of the "Production" section more clear - this is essentially important info on why and how the show itself had to be modified, due to legal issues surrounding the nature of its subject matter.
 * 6) Trimmed out the use of the word "hilarious", per suggestion from GA Review.
 * 7) Added more information and reference from artcile Tom Cruise, about appearance on the Oprah show.


 * My own view is that there is still too repetitious. For example, Katie Holmes being a robot or robotic is mentioned in four different places. I haven't counted how many times references to Cruises height are made. It gets to sound needlessly Cruise-bashing. More examples:


 * There too many quotes that repeat each other, and the quotes are too long. For example: 'In a later review of the program for the Evening Times when it was shown again on re-runs, McDonald wrote, "Now, I'm usually the first one to whine about the number of repeats on telly but some things are worth a second glance and this is definitely one of them. ... I don't care if it's been shown several times before, this is one of the shows which you just have to see again."' That one quote says over and over that its "re-runs", "repeats", "a second glance", "several times before", "see again." This seems to say the same thing over and over to the reader. The reader has gotten this point long ago. (How about a simple referenced statement to the effect that reviewers felt that watching the rerun was definitely worthwhile?)


 * The pullquote seems like a repetition, even if it is not exactly one, as the reader as already gotten the point from all the quotes and statements in the text. This is an interesting article that is drowned by repetition.


 * This quotes seems like the focus is on the cleverness of the review writer rather than conveying useful, objective information about the film: 'The Daily Mirror gave a tongue-in-cheek analysis of the satire on the program, commenting, "They don't poke fun at his sofa-jumping appearance on Oprah Winfrey's chat show, or his original dodgy teeth. And what they most certainly don't do is rip the proverbial out of his bonkers wedding vows, or stick an alien bride and groom on top of his wedding cake. No, because that would just be cruel. And regular viewers know that this show's writers and actors would never do that. Because doing that would be, well, it would just be far too funny."'

Xtzou ( Talk ) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you, these additional points are good suggestions. Thanks again. -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * I think the article more than adequately covers these points. It harms the article when they become excessive because the tone of the article is no longer encyclopaedic.   Excessive use of quotations also in not encyclopaedic. Quotes  should be used judiciously and not relied upon to carry the content of the article.
 * 2nd response
 * 1) Trimmed down some of the repetition, per above suggestions by GA Reviewer.
 * 2) Trimmed down this quote significantly, to a shorter version, per above recommendation by GA Reviewer.
 * 3) Removed the pullquote, entirely, per suggestion by GA Reviewer.
 * 4) Significantly trimmed down this quote to just the last phrase of it, per GA Review suggestion.
 * Great. Thanks for being so cooperative. I do think it is much better now and has more punch. Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! This is a nice little article and a pleasure to read. Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)