Talk:Wedding Crashers/GA1

GA Review

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

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)

---

 Done

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.
• Wedding Crashers is a 2005 American comedy film directed by David Dobkin, written by Steve Faber and Bob Fisher, starring Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn and Christopher Walken with Rachel McAdams, Isla Fisher, Bradley Cooper and Jane Seymour in supporting roles. run-on sentence
• A sleeper hit, the film opened on July 15, 2005, through New Line Cinema to critical and commercial success, grossing $288.5 million worldwide on a $40 million budget unwieldy sentence structure due to that serial comma usage
• It was the 6th highest grossing film of 2005 in the United States, became the first R rated comedy to make $200 million at the domestic box office and is credited with helping to revive the popularity of adult-oriented, R-rated comedies. Two distinct ideas merged into one badly written sentence
• During the reception, Jeremy has sex with Gloria on a nearby beach who afterwards tells him that she was a virgin. "Gloria confesses to Jeremy that she was a virgin until their tryst on a nearby beach."
• massaging his penis at a family dinner and attacks him after tying his wrists and ankles to a bedframe 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."
• The film was released in North America on July 15, 2005, and became an immediate hit, grossing $33,900,720 in its first weekend, opening at #2 in the box office, behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 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?

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:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

4. 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)