Talk:Unfaithful (2002 film)

Unfaithful (2002 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 27, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Unfaithful.JPG[edit]

Image:Unfaithful.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some questions I had while reading the article:

The part about the actors gaining weight left me wondering if they did. Did Lane? Did Gere?
Biziou often used two cameras for the film's intimate scenes in order to spare the actors any discomfort. - how would this decrease discomfort?
What were the other endings? What got re-shot? What did the test audiences not like about the ending that made them go back to the original?
What happened with Fatal Attraction that would make the director shoot five endings?
How did the video do on DVD? In rentals?

I'll do a copy edit of the article once all of these questions are answered. The article will remain on hold for one week. Good luck! Nikki311 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there has been no improvements made to the article, I am failing it. Nikki311 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot: "quick but steamy and erotic makeup sex in the hallway". We need a woman to tell us more about this description. Was it rape? Was it steamy and erotic sex? It would be good if we had an authority tell us which is which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C780:D060:484E:6A38:F1F1:566F (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

"The filming proved to be challenging for the actors who had to endure smoke being piped in during scenes for 18 to 20 hours a day."

I don't understand this sentence. Where and why was smoke being piped in? What scenes? 18 to twenty hours a day? The actors are working for that long each day? What?? TripOnMyShip (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.64.65 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Lead Paragraph[edit]

With all due respect, this lead paragraph is way too long. It should be about the film and not about how tough it was to shoot the film; that belongs in production. Perhaps a summary should be included, but not a documentary. –TashTish (talk)

Detective's photos[edit]

The film showed the detective handing Sumner the photos he had taken of Constance and Paul. He did not give him the negatives. Why did the film fail to show him doing this or are PIs legally required to keep the negatives of photos taken for their clients?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Hardcore, the PI in that movie, when obtaining a porno film of the hero's daughter, claims to the hero that he owns the movie, the film, etc., but that he'll show it to him as proof of something bad. So that would be two movies I'm aware of a PI keeping source evidence. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unfaithful (2002 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006172335/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-movie000032467may08,0,3886120.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie000032467may08,0,3886120.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone passive-aggressively adding in their personal moral judgements to the References section for this article[edit]

In the 'References' section at the end of the article on this movie ("Unfaithful"), the third reference cited is an interview with Olivier Martinez by Fred Topol from 2002. When you click on the live hypertext to go to the article, you are instead taken to a very religious website of christian basis, to an article that preaches a very christian-purist definition of "faith" and clearly not the Fred Topol interview. This is the article...

www.learnreligions.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-faith-700722

It might be prudent to permanently block those who try to infuse their religious convictions into what should be a neutral & academic description such as this, even if the infusion is as hidden & passive-aggressive as this.