Talk:Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 14, 2007

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Trivia 2 Synopsis 3 Major expansion 4 GA Review – GA Failed

[edit] Trivia

Below information should be re-integrated into the article in other sections.

• Liliana Mumy (Jessica Baker) and Morgan York (Kim Baker) in real life are a year apart but are fraternal twins in the movie.

• Brent and Shane Kinsman (Nigel and Kyle Baker) are identical twins.

• In the scene where Charlie Baker (Tom Welling) finally stands up to the bullies, Jared Padalecki, had to stand on a cardboard box to be shown taller than Charlie Baker since Tom Welling is 6'3"

• For a brief moment, Kate Baker's book can be seen. Her full name is revealed to be 'Kate Gilbreth Baker'. The Gilbreths were the family featured in the book Cheaper by the Dozen

• Steve Martin who is a self-confessed, huge Whovian, accepted the lead role as Tom Baker because it was as close as he could get to fulfilling the goal of so many Whovians and play The Doctor

• Kevin Schmidt and Ashton Kutcher both later co-starred in The Butterfly Effect, but were not seen in any scenes together, since Kevin played the younger Lenny.

--Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

I've never seen or heard of this movie, but it needs a PLOT SYNOPSIS. Please? Pretty please? Goldfritter 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major expansion

Hello, I noticed that article needed some work so I've added a plot synopsis, added character biographies, added references, fixed the categories, added a few goofs and more info on the production/writers etc. I'll add some similarities from the book shortly and then I think it'll be done! Any thoughts and or comments? Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For GAC, the trivia section should be removed and the information integrated into the rest of the article. The poster also didn't have a fair use rationale, but I added one. --Nehrams2020 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review – GA Failed

I'm failing this film article because it lacks two important sections of any film article: Production and Reception. I would suggest taking a look at WikiProject Films' style guidelines as well as WikiProject Films' Featured and Good articles found here. Below are some minor suggestions to continue improving the article:

• Remove subsection titles from the Plot and try to re-sort the sentences into 3-4 paragraphs. Also, common words (like dog and fight) should not be wiki-linked.
• The Characters and Cast sections should be merged together. It can be formatted as shown below:

• Steve Martin as Tom Baker: The father of twelve children and husband of Kate Baker... (the rest follows)

• The Production crew section repeats what is already in the Infobox Film template. The same goes for the Producers and Screenplay sections. More encyclopedic content about the film's production would include detail about the adaptation of the book to the film, how they found their cast, where it was filmed, and anything unique in the process such as delays in filming.
• The Awards section seems underdeveloped and does not say which actor was nominated for which award.
• Like Nehrams said above, the information from the Trivia section should be merged into the rest of the article. The Goofs section is as trivial and could be merged, but it seems best to remove it.

I think that if you want to improve this article, you should find information about Production and Reception first. These, besides the Plot, are staple sections for any film articles, and most other content can be added around it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to the review. Adding on to what Erik said, the film's title in the lead needs to be in italics as well as bold. Gran² 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)