Talk:Obsessed (2009 film)/GA4

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: BrandonWu (talk · contribs) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm BrandonWu and I'll be the reviewer for this article! Note that I am part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/User:BrandonWu I will try and work within a 7 day time frame! Also, my recruiter may step in at times (Figureskatingfan) to help me! This GA review should be fun!WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
The prose looks very good, but some places can be tweaked. See below for a prose review.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The Manual of Style is good for GA but can be lengthened for FA.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
~~The Plot section of the article seems not to have references... Can you specify which one they're in or add references.~~ Didn't see WP:PLOT, the plot part is good :P
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Most aspects are covered.

B. Focused:
Length seems good, but as I stated earlier this article needs to be lengthened a little bit to become FA.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Not leaning towards one side
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Not much talk on the talk page either...
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Great pictures, more pictures could be added for a future FA nom.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Like I said above^^^^, these pictures are adequate, but when nominating this for FA add more pictures.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
See below for a prose and source review.

Prose Review[edit]

Lead Section

Looks good from here, again could be lengthened for future FA, but do not lengthen it too long.

Plot Section

As I have not seen the movie, does the movie end with the detective coming in?

It ends with Sharon walking out of the house, Reese pulling up in a police car and asking what happened, then she runs inside. Derek turns up and he and Sharon embrace, then it fades to black. These seem like surplus details though, in my opinion; do you think the last sentence needs a bit of tweaking? Adabow (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Selection

List looks good.

Production Section (Background) She really believes that [Derek] is in love with her.

Shouldn't this be changed to She really believes that Derek is in love with her.

Per MOS:QUOTE, changes to the original quote should be stipulated by using square brackets. Adabow (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the subsection (Casting and filming), is it really necessary for brackets? (relatable and [be able to] handle that type of human interplay that we have in the film)

I modified the sentence. Adabow (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the same subsection shouldn't it say "...immediately fell in love with that idea; once she suggested Beyoncé, nobody else could play the role." and not "immediately ... fell in love with that idea; once she suggested Beyoncé, nobody else could play the role."

No; the omission is replaces by an ellipsis (MOS:QUOTE). Adabow (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Set and Costumes AND Music Subsections

Both sections appear to be very concise!

Unfortunately this is all the information I have been able to find. It is a rather cheap film, after all. :P Adabow (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception Section

All subsections in the section are to the point, length is according to criteria; well done!

Will come back to the source review sometime this week, hopefully tomorrow! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan's prose review[edit]

Hi, since we're using this review for the GA Recruitment Centre, I as Brandon's mentor would like to add my feedback here. Lucky nominator you--two reviews for the price of one! Which isn't something that usually happens, but the more the merrier, right? Thank you for indulging us and allowing us to use this article as a guinea pig.

Lead

Obsessed was filmed on a set inspired by the work of directors... Movies are usually filmed on sets, so you don't need to tell us the obvious. I think you could just say, Obsessed was inspired by the work of directors..."
Others noted that the potential theme of interracial conflict between the Charles family (black) and Lisa (white) was unexplored. A little too informal; how about: "Others noted that the potential theme of interracial conflict between the Charles family, who were black, and Lisa, who was white, was unexplored.

Background

Shill stated that the intended effect of the film was to have the audience discuss about the characters' motivations. "Discuss about" is incorrect; please remove the word "about".

This is embarrassing! Adabow (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casting and filming

Sharon was Beyoncé's first film starring portrayal of a non-singer, therefore she found it challenging... Okay, we know that Beyonce's role wasn't a singer, so this is repetitive. I think you could restructure this sentence and the one before it, like this: "Packer said that Beyoncé became interested in working on Obsessed because the film was not focused on the music industry, and that it was the first time she played a non-singer. Packer also reported that "she was looking for that challenge and welcomed this opportunity". Beyonce stated that she found it challenging to concentrate purely on "the emotion and the psychology of the relationship".
Furthermore, Beyoncé had never taken part in a fight scene prior to Obsessed, however she quickly picked up the skill due to its similarities to dance choreography, with which she was familiar. You don't need the word "furthermore", and "however" needs to have a semi-colon before it. I suggest this: "Beyoncé had never taken part in a fight scene, but she was able to learn how to perform the scenes quickly because they were similar to dance choreography, with which she was familiar."
For the film, Larter was inspired by the actresses Rita Hayworth, Barbara Stanwyck and Faye Dunaway... It's technically grammatically correct to start a sentence with a preposition, but I personally don't think it's formal enough for an encyclopedia. At any rate, we know that it was for the film, so you don't have to tell us the obvious. I think you could also cut the word "the actresses", since you've linked their names and you say later in the sentence that they had also played femme fatales.

Critical response

...Obsessed made no attempt to explain why Lisa was so determined to seduce Derek, who never showed any interest whatsoever in taking her up on her offer. A little wordy; how about: "Obsessed did not explain why Lisa was so determined to seduce Derek, who showed so interest in her at all."
Stella Papamichael of Digital Spy called the film predictable and blamed the well-defined morality of the characters, writing that they "are drawn in 2D. They are either good or bad". Breaks the tense rule, which is difficult to correct because of how you've chosen to word it. I think you could use more of the quote from the source, like this: "Stella Papamichael of Digital Spy called the film predictable and blamed the well-defined morality of the characters. She writes, "Unlike the bunny-boiling '80s classic Fatal Attraction, the characters are drawn in 2D. They are either good or bad, and there is absolutely no attempt to understand what drives them either way."
I know that the Doyle quote is from the guardian.co.uk website, but it's a subsidiary of The Guardian newspaper, so you might as well cite it instead of the website, to lend more credibility to your statement.

That's all I have. I'll keep an eye on Brandon's source review. Again, thanks for your willingness and openness to the Centre's goals. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Christine and Brandon. This Recruitment Centre seems like a great idea! I'm going to be very busy over the next ~72 hours IRL, but I should be able to address everything by Friday or Saturday, if that's OK. Adabow (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented all of your suggestions, but changed "She writes" to "She wrote". Adabow (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

Some of the sources look like they are not WP:RS such as Ref 28 and 12. Can you please confirm the reliability of these sources? (I'm not very experienced at looking over sources/refs.) WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some feedback about sources:

Ref 3: The AllMovie source is adequate for GA, but it's not great. It's not required for GA, but I suggest that you find another more reliable source for the same information, which I wouldn't think would be difficult.

Replaced. Adabow (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4: Again, this is another suggestion not dependent on this article passing to GA: I think you could do a better job at utilizing this source. For example, this source quotes Shill, the movie's DP, describing some of the filming techniques he used. Gainor basically calls the house set another character, and why they used a separate set for the fight scenes. You don't include any of this, and I suspect there's more you could add. This is just a suggestion, since the current version fulfills the GA criteria for broadness and major aspects, but it would fill out things nicely, I think.

Added some info; let me know what you think. Adabow (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16: Amazon.com isn't the most reliable source. I understand that you may need to keep it, though, if it's the only available source for the information. If you can find a better source that contains the same information, I suggest that you replace it.
Ref 28: Another utilization issue: Braun is more critical of the movie than you report. I highly suggest that you go through all our sources and add missing information like this.
Ref 30: Another critic who's meaner than you let on; you should at least include more of the negative review here.
Refs 47-57: All these Amazon.com refs aren't the best, but you may need them. Again, if you can find the same information elsewhere, I highly suggest that you replace them where possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonWu: @Figureskatingfan: I have addressed all of the issues you have raised, except referencing the IMDb for the soundtrack, as I couldn't find that information anywhere more reliable. I am happy to remove the information if you are still unsatisfied. I removed the intimate details of the home media release, as the first release date is really the only important one. Let me know if there are any more concerns you have with the article. Again, thanks to both of you for taking the time to review it! Adabow (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great Adabow! Will pass it now! Great job on the prose and sources!WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for the future, Brandon, that when a GA is passed it must be listed at one of the subsections of WP:GA. I have added this article. Adabow (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]