Talk:Wedding Crashers/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 09:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

✅
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Article suffers from grammar and prose issues. Just to name a few:
 * Lede is too thin for an article with a 16K prose size; ideally, it should consist of at least three paragraphs in an article like this (see WP:LEDE). Also, it doesn't provide an overview of the Production section, such as development, casting, filming, and the like.
 * run-on sentence
 * unwieldy sentence structure due to that serial comma usage
 * Two distinct ideas merged into one badly written sentence
 * "Gloria confesses to Jeremy that she was a virgin until their tryst on a nearby beach."
 * well, she didn't really "massage" his member in the sense that she directly stimulated it, but rather stroked his crotch since they were clothed; so it should be "stroking his crotch at a family dinner and sexual assaults him after tying his wrists and ankles to a bedframe."
 * run-on sentence
 * Critical response needs a major overhaul for it to satisfy the well written criteria. For one, it borders on WP:QUOTEFARM and is not thematically organized. Try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. See WP:QUOTES and WP:RECEPTION, which contains very good examples on how to achieve a well written reception section. And since this is a 17-year-old movie, there should be a dedicated paragraph for retrospective reviews on the movie, where that 2018 GQ piece belongs. If you could find retro reviews of the movie, it'd be great.
 * I see some misuse of the hashtag symbol (MOS:HASH)
 * % symbol is only used once, thus the word equivalent should be used (WP:PERCENT)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Cast and their roles must be reliable sourced as per WP:FILMCAST
 * What makes cite 16 reliable?
 * Make sure the inline citations observe exemplary formatting
 * Any RS on the movie's reception upon theatrical release?
 * Any RS on the movie's reception upon theatrical release?


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Seems broad enough, however:
 * Any information on when the filming wrapped?
 * You can expand the article using this EW piece: https://ew.com/article/2005/07/08/story-wedding-crashers/


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Apologies, but this nomination merits a quick fail. There are just simply too many issues in the article for me too put this on hold. Should you renominate this, though, you might want to put up a copyedit a request at the Guild of Copy Editors beforehand. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Apologies, but this nomination merits a quick fail. There are just simply too many issues in the article for me too put this on hold. Should you renominate this, though, you might want to put up a copyedit a request at the Guild of Copy Editors beforehand. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)