This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the original script outline for the romantic comedy The Other Woman (2014) was characterised as The First Wives Club (1996) but with a younger cast?
Current status: Good article
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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 (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
There are errors in the plot section. I'm not that good at writing plot summaries, but Carly and Kate didn't destroy Mark's office, Kate did it by herself. Carly asks Mark out by text message in front of Kate to make a point, so this wasn't something that was discovered. Mark did not take Kate on a trip to the Bahamas; Kate followed him there to spy on him and was unexpectedly joined by Carly and Amber. At the end, Carly was pregnant by Kate's brother, and it was never stated that she agonised over the (presumed) marriage between Amber and her father, just that she refused to call Amber Mom.Egdcltd (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's a lot of reviews in this article, I would recommend that you put some of the reviewers' main criticisms of the film in the lead as a way of giving the reader more information early on.
"using Kate as the owner of the companies he defrauded, which if discovered would result in her going to prison." I'm sorry, what? He pretended that Kate was the owner of the companies he defrauded? How did the companies not notice this? Also, the sentence is stilted, so even if this is the case, you should change the wording.
Is the last paragraph of the plot summary an epilogue-type thing? If it is, I would specify that, because currently, it seems like this part still takes place in the film's main time frame.
In the Cast section, I would change/expand the image's caption a bit: maybe "the partial cast of The Other Woman (from left to right): Kate Upton, Cameron Diaz, and Leslie Mann."
The "Development" and "Casting" subsections read basically just like a list of dates--there doesn't really seem to be much more substance in the sources, so I would avoid similar sentence constructions (On ____…), and instead mix things up a bit. Let me know if you need help doing that.
"Isola Trattoria and Crudo Bar…" Wait, is this "celebration toast" in the film or like a wrap party? Either way, I'll have some sentence structure comments, but just tell me which one it is.
The soundtrack.net source does not report there being any soundtrack albums, but you refer to it as such. Why so? If an album was released, please include a track listing.
There' nothing in the source that specifically says that they sought a lower rating because of those specific numbers, although they probably did to have more audience members in general. However, I wouldn't speculate about any of this, so take that clause out.
I find this to be a funny place to put "home media"--I'm used to seeing it at the end of the article. In this style, it should probably be a section of its own at the end.
In the lead (and at the beginning of the critical reception section) I'm not looking for one specific review: I'm looking for the general criticisms of the film. Was it the plot? Characters? Style of comedy? Acting? Directing? All of these? Also, group all negative and positive reviews together. Because the movie had very negative reviews, put the negative reviews first. Also, within the positive reviews, were there any aspects of the film that positive critics generally liked?
I've never seen a review mentioned in the lead, I used to put just the review result. If you want it that way, can you specify which one should be put in the lead and at the beginning of the critical reception? --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that one word of the Roeper review does it justice, especially because this is Roeper we're talking about. Also, the word "brutal" could be used in a review of a positive film (i.e. "brutal in its honesty"), but you should add a quote that shows that it's negative.
For the references, don't put the web addresses (i.e. nytimes.com, time.com), instead, in the work field, put The New York Times and Time), etc. For publications that are primarily known by their web domain (e.g. Soundtrack.net), keep it, but everything else has to be changed. The references look good in terms of reliability.
I feel as though there are too many external links, and not all of them are really necessary for the reader. If you really want to keep all of them, you can, but I would remove the Turner Classic Movies and AllMovie ones.
The GA criteria aren't really all that strict, unfortunately. One thing we can do is crack down on original research, such as proclamations that a film is a "box office success". Unless a source explicitly says this, it doesn't belong in our article – and Box Office Mojo does not label films like this. Another problem is that editors really like adding their own personal analysis of the film's reception. We already have two review aggregators, so we don't need something like "it received negative reviews, which criticized it's plot and acting". Yeah, the five reviews you have listed might have done that, but we need a reliable source to state that this was a majority consensus. It's better to simply quote what Rotten Tomatoes says in its consensus. And, of course, we have the ubiquitous Mad Libs production section: "on [date], [magazine] confirmed that [actor] was cast in the role of [character]." I tried to do some copy edits, but it's still proseline.NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 