Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1

The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because after expanding the article and ensuring every paragraph/accolade listing had citations, I'd like some input on whether this is likely to pass a GA nomination. It will be my first time nominating a movie article for that, so perhaps I'm missing something that should be added beforehand. My current priority is ensuring the page is broad enough in coverage.

Thanks, SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments soon. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Working[reply]

Very much looking forward to it! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

I'm going through a lot right now Snuggums, but I did not want to leave you hanging. First obvious change (IMO) is like with Die Hard and Trading Places, make the cast list the "starring" names and then put the rest in prose underneath, maybe explain their roles (if sourceable), and add pics of some key cast where available.
A tiny section for the box office is pointless so I'd merge it into the Reception section.
Ultimately needs some kind of Legacy or retrospective section. I've never seen the film but I think it was pretty popular at the time, is there any retrospective reviews around the ten year mark or anything else that shows if it still has some kind of positive or negative reception? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understandable, Darkwarriorblake, and I do appreciate what you've given so far! Images of Carell and Keener have been added (and it admittedly was hard to find something good for the latter where the copyright status can be verified as appropriate). I disagree with the thought of merging box office when that would just make the "release" section even shorter than it already was (such a move would only leave DVD, Blu-ray, and maybe theatrical premiere dates), so what I did instead was expand that section with details on more box office openings and other features included on a Blu-ray release. As for legacy/retrospective comments, there are two reviews included that were written for this movie's 10th anniversary and another from 2018 talking about how it's favored in Michigan above other romcoms. If you still feel more post-2005 commentary is needed, then adding that shouldn't be a problem. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've now adjusted the cast section per your recommendations and elaborated on the extra 17 minutes included on the "unrated" edition. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER UPDATE: More retrospective commentary has been added. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

Not really necessary, but could the lede be expanded to at least 3 paragraphs?
Sourcing is good, but not great (Not faulting you, it can be difficult to find high quality RS for film articles.) Although probably acceptable for a GA, not a fan of some of the more obscure works. And I would definitely avoid citing Amazon.
Although probably not necessary for a GA, I would eventually integrate the See Also links into the article (maybe in a legacy section).
I would avoid use of the word "subsequently". The experienced FA reviewers really hammered that into me.
Fix Apatow started casting the film early in the development process and had no preconceptions about the friends and workers in the store was able to tailor the script to the strengths of the actors
Would it be possible to add another image? Maybe from one of the filming locations?
Maybe link "Waxing"
In the Production section, "this film" --> "the film"

Overall, I think this is ready for a GA nomination, but I would recommend another peer review if you want to eventually take this up to FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 01:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful for your thoughts, HAL333! I'm just not sure what else should be added to the lead to make it three paragraphs. As for images, I added one of Judd Apatow since he directed the movie, and it seemed simpler to search for that than a good shot of a filming location that isn't filled with unrelated people. While Amazon is fine for non-contentious claims (e.g. duration, release date, format), I've replaced it with a Blu-ray.com link just to save the trouble of any nitpicks it might receive at a future FAC. Every other suggestion has been implemented except for the titles listed under "See also" and replacing "more obscure works". Sometimes that's the best we can find for verifying certain details. My plan is to at some point go for FA after getting the page up to GA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I removed a "See also" entry that (as far as I could tell) wasn't related to this movie at all. The remake and parody could however be implemented into prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER UPDATE: Naughty @ 40 and The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It have now both been reworked into a section titled "Other media" at least until I can come up with something better. The latter admittedly was hard to find good sourcing for in terms of noting how it's a parody. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Some Dude From North Carolina

The "use mdy dates" template should go below the hatnote per MOS:ORDER.
Improve the poster's non-free use rationale with this template.
The poster billing block (for the infobox) only includes Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, and Paul Rudd.
"After working as..." should be its own paragraph (centered around production) along with the sentence starting with "Filming took place..."
The comma after "twentieth date" does not seem necessary in #Plot since the sentence is kinda short.
I would suggest finding a way to avoid having "In [date], [country] made [money]" repeat in #Release too much.
The accolades table should follow the accessibility guidelines (sortname, scoperows, ref column, etc.).
The table is also missing a "date of ceremony" column so I would add that as well.
The "Other media" section seems rather short and out of place.
With that in mind, I believe the citations could use the most work. To start, several references are missing dates, access dates, authors, websites, and optional wikilinks, and there are also some sources deemed unreliable (see WP:NYPOST and WP:RSP/BLURAY). Avoid using the "publisher" parameter for websites per Template:Cite web#Publisher, and make sure to mark sources from The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Atlantic with "|url-access=limited". Additionally, the one source "from" the Chicago Sun-Times is actually from RogerEbert.com. Finally, archiving sources would help in case those sites are later deleted. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these have been addressed, Some Dude From North Carolina. I've hidden the "other media" for now (can't currently decide whether to scrap any mention of the parody and remake entirely or just move them to some other part of the article). Hopefully the accolades table looks better now per your suggestions and what GagaNutella wrote below (there admittedly were a few where I wasn't certain of the exact date so I instead opted for ranges on those). Since I'm completely oblivious as to how archive links are created, I'll have to let another user work on those. If you know how, then feel free to implement them yourself. Regarding the billing block, are you suggesting only Carell, Keener, and Rudd should be listed under "starring" in the infobox? That would make it seem incomplete when Romany Malco and Seth Rogen also have major roles in this movie. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film says to only "insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." You can also use this tool for archiving sources, which I have run on this article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your archiving is appreciated, and I (reluctantly) have removed the other names from "starring" per the infobox page you linked. Do you believe it's better to delete the content that was mentioned in "Other media" entirely or incorporate those works into some other part of the article? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove it entirely since they are not relevant in the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to that, and it's now gone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GagaNutella

Remove the Gold Derby Awards; they do not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Derby Awards (2nd nomination)).
You have some issues with the sorting on the recipient column.
I would rename the Association column to Award, the Award column to Category, and I would write recipient(s).
Wikilink Entertainment Weekly on ref 20, The A.V. Club on ref 32, The Atlantic on ref 44, Critics Choice Association on ref 50, IndieWire on ref 55, and wikilink + change Writers Guild of America Awards to Writers Guild of America, East on ref 57.
The official website is not working, at least here in Brazil lol, maybe you should remove it.

The article looks great! GagaNutella^talk 00:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which link isn't working for you, GagaNutella, but everything else you mentioned has been adjusted accordingly. Glad you think it's overall in good shape :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This site, but it might be because I live in Brazil. Oh, the only thing still missing is the sorting issue. It should sort "You know how I know you're gay?" at Y and with a quote mark sorts at the top, The 40-Year-Old Virgin sorts at first (40) and the names of the people sort by their surname. GagaNutella^talk 02:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the sorting issue now (thanks for clarifying what needed to be changed), and since that URL didn't load for me either, I just boldly went ahead and removed it altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! I hope it gets the GA status soon. GagaNutella^talk 04:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

Resolved comments

I am uncertain if this parenthetical (who co-wrote the screenplay with Apatow) is the best way to introduce this information. It would seem like the second paragraph would make more sense since it is about the creation of the film.
I have been told repeatedly in the past to avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction. An example of this in the article is, with Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, and Paul Rudd playing. I would revise that instance and look throughout the entire article to revise out any other instances.
The first two lines of the lead's second paragraph read rather awkwardly to me. I would look at better ways to word that information, and i would avoid using "something" at all, let alone two sentence in a row.
I would add the year that Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy was released for context.
I would think the virginity would go to virgin instead, which is mentioned before virginity in both the lead and the body of the article.
It may be helpful to add a link for speed dating. Also, the Wikipedia article does not use a hyphen, but a hyphen is used here. Do you know which way is correct?
The following is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. After reading the bit on the transvestite prostitute in the plot summary, I was curious on if this plot point has been discussed in retrospective reviews, especially since conversations about gender have changed quite a bit since 2005. I found a short mention in The Advocate (here), but I have not really looked.
I have not seen the film so apologies if this is obvious, but why is "ask questions" in quotes?
For this sentence, Jay's girlfriend breaks up with him due to his infidelity, and after getting in a fight with a customer, Jay concedes to Andy that sex can ruin a relationship., I'd try to avoid saying "Jay" twice.
Would a link to sexual deviant be helpful in the plot summary?
In the "Cast" section, I do not think the "eventually gives up on trying" is really necessary and I would think you can paraphrase it.
I have two comments on this part, and is deemed "the most adventurous of the group.". I believe punctuation should be on the outside of the quotation marks since it is not a full quote. Also, who is deeming the character this way? I would attribute this in the prose.
For the images, I would the year that the photos were taken to provide further context to the reader.
I would replace citation 27 with something better as I do not believe an eBay listing is a considered a good Wikipedia source.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have read up to the "Production" section, and I will post more comments about the rest of the article sometime next week. The article looks like it is in pretty good shape for a GAN so I believe that should go well. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the article per what you've given so far, Aoba47, and included a better image of Carell. To answer your inquiries:

Speed dating isn't hyphenated after all.
The only good piece I could find discussing the prostitute aside from that blurb in The Advocate was an interview with ScreenCrush where Jazzmun expressed gratitude for even having a chance to play this role. Not sure how much value either piece would add. The character just appears in one scene to begin with (and is only briefly discussed after being shown), which I suspect is at least partially why that doesn't get as much attention in post-2005 articles written on the movie as other aspects.
Cal's "ask questions" bit was advising Andy to ask women about themselves rather than talk about himself, which has now been elaborated on.
The "adventurous" description comes from Scott Chitwood's DVD review and I've added his name to the prose.

It's encouraging that you think this has a good chance of becoming a GA :)! May you enjoy your weekend as well, and do let me know whether you feel there's any other way I can improve it before nominating. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I tried to run a bot that Some Dude From North Carolina linked to above (which I've just noticed now is also linked to on your talk page) so it would archive an AllMovie URL that I replaced eBay with, but it doesn't seem to have changed anything at the time I wrote this comment. Some help here would be appreciated. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. You are correct that the prostitute aside is not notable enough to mention beyond the brief part in the plot summary. Thank you for looking into it though as it was something that caught my eye while reading the article. You have done great work with the article, and I admire you for tackling such a well-known film. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I have archived the AllMovie citation. I did manually through the Internet Archive. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, is the first feature length production that Judd Apatow directed., would it be better to just say something like, is Judd Apatow's directional debut., as it would be more concise?
I have a question about this part: Lots of dialogue in The 40-Year-Old Virgin was improvised. Would it be fair to say either most of a majority of the dialogue was improvised? Something about "Lots of" seems rather informal to me so that is the only reason I am bringing this up.
For this part, celebrated with free champagne by Technicolor, I believe you mean from Technicolor as the company was not making the champagne.
For this part, how Apatow was "lighting [the film] like an indie", I would encourage you to just paraphrase the quote.
Do we know why Universal rejected Jason Segel as a possible cast member?
Thank you for adding the Kelly Clarkson part. Although I have never seen this film, even I know about this scene and I distinctly remember it just being everywhere around the time of the film's release. That being said, I would re-examine this part further because I think the prose is rather awkwardly constructed.
I would add a link for Blu-ray.
For the "Initial critical response" subsection, how are you structuring the paragraphs? I can see the last one is about the more negative reviews, but I think more structure would be beneficial for the first two.
I have a similar question for the "Retrospective commentary" subsection. The first paragraph has a clear structure, but how are you structuring the second and third paragraphs?
As I recommended on my talk page, I would strongly encourage you to research the scholarly coverage on the film to possibly create a section about the themes.

This should be the end of my review. I hope my comments are helpful. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. That FAC is about a much much more obscure comedy than this lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lots of dialogue" part was based on this saying "the film itself features a great deal of improvised dialogue". An exact amount isn't specified, Aoba47, but I've revised it to "A large portion of the dialogue". As for the rejection of Jason Segel, the best I can find is some speculation that it was due to his general lack of recognition at the time. Would you prefer adding that or just scrapping Segal entirely when it doesn't seem to be known for certain? Getting into the reviews, I've reworked the "Initial critical response" to open with a paragraph of year-end commentary (Rotten Tomates along with Ebert and Roeper) followed by two paragraphs of positive reviews in general, and the last one still contains the negative reviews. I might expand the first one to include some end of the year rankings. In case it wasn't already clear, the 2nd paragraph of "Retrospective commentary" focuses on pieces assessing the film on its 10th anniversary. The last one is for post-2015 reviews. Unless I missed something, the only scholarly pieces I came across that discuss this movie at all just give brief mentions except for one synopsis that I only have partial access to. What value does its first page alone provide? You'll find more analysis within the post-2005 reviews included and perhaps here. The rest of your suggestions have been implemented, and I'll be sure to check out that FAC of yours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the revision for the dialogue part is better and your explanation makes sense to me. If an exact reason for the Segel part is not given, then the mention in the article is fine as it currently stands. The general lack of recognition at the time seems like a safe bet as that seems to be a reason why a lot of actors were passed over for roles. Thank you for the explanation for the two "Reception" subsections. That makes sense to me.
I honestly did not do a deep dive in whether or not there was scholarly coverage on the film. I had just assumed there would be given how popular this film was, but I know from personal experience that academia can be quite resistant to studying more recent, popular films. In one of my graduate classes, I was assigned an article on Bend It Like Beckham, and while my professor praised the theory, she absolutely hated that the writer chose to apply it to a film like that. Thank you for your help with my FAC. Everything looks good here and this looks ready for a GAN (at least to me). Best of luck with the rest of the peer review and the future GAN. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, and I've now added the guess on why Universal didn't let Segel in. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]