# Talk:Horrible Bosses

Production notes can be found here. —Mike Allen  06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The page contains an uncited claim of "reviewers who felt the jokes were racist, homophobic and misogynistic." Given its place in the opening part of the article, I feel that implies it is wide-spread. However, I've not yet come across any reviews that have made this claim, much less enough to give it such prominence. I've tried to edit it with a "citation needed", but that has been removed. Are there actually reviews claiming such a thing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.191.199 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 

For the third and final time.  Read the critical reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Salon comment states this, yes... but is there anymore to make it appear widespread? Stabby Joe (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Several of the top reviews, even the positive ones brought up Foxx's character seeming racist and sexism that Aniston is hot rather than ugly to make the premise more believable.  I didn't want to keep reiterating the same point repeatedly.  Plenty of other comments made about homophobic undertones, unintentional I believe but still that is what the reviewers felt.  Feel free to go read through the top reviews, you'll see what I mean.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not denying these criticisms, they're perfectly legitimate. My raised point is more on the article. I just don't see that one comment at the end of a paragraph would normally be replicated in the article lead. If more than one were mentioned then it would make more sense basically. But of course simply adding more comment wouldn't work in the current state of the reception as it would no longer be neutral for what was actually a positive reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well that's the issue, even the positive reviews were somewhat mixed since the ones I read tended to bring up one more of these criticisms, generally a a counterpoint to the things they did enjoy.  The review by I 'think' The Village Voice was written by a woman and she seemed pretty PO'd in general about it.  I can add more OF that if it helps but the criticism is genuine, but as you say it might cause issues with unbalancing the section.  The lead section, it would be unfair to say that reviews were wholly positive because they weren't, so I counterbalanced that with the most common criticismDarkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I understand why it is the article. Currently though it doesn't fit given the weight of the comment (or lack of) in the article. The only thing I can think of for now is perhaps removing then adding or re-quoting a review that also states this similar view. Of course this only a quick suggestion. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a quick re-read and maybe add near the bottom the reviewers that mentioned it instead of interjecting it after every positive review Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) That woman reviewer from the Village Voice appears to be a particularly vitriolic and bitter harpie that never seems to have a good word to say about ANY film she reviews. Hers was the very first review to be posted on RT and as usual she seemed to be somewhat out of step with many of the reviews that followed. We should tread carefully in attributing any undue weight to her traditionally jaundiced viewpoint. Taking a more balanced view across the range of professional reviews would be a much better tack. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 14:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, as I was reading it I was curious what her problem was because it was so over the top.  But several of the reviews I read when writing the reception section brought up at least racism (concerning everything related to Foxx), sometimes sexism concerning Aniston and the guys wife since they're both hot nymphos and homophobia, though I'm not sure what that related to in the film.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I added a few reviews from major newspapers that specifically call out these elements.  Is this enough or does it need more? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Strangers On A Train?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.19.128 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horrible Bosses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —Mike Allen  02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 
What makes File:Horrible bosses bluray.jpg special enough to be included?
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Since the Music section is so well-developed, would it work better under the production section?   Not a requirement at all, but you know about archiving sources. If you plan to take this to FA, that will be useful.
Comment I was using the blu-ray cover pretty much like an Album cover, it's not a huge deal but I can't really justify it beyond that so I have removed it.  I moved the music section into the production area.  I will archive everything either today or tomorrow, just been having some issues with my right hand and since I'm right handed, makes using the mouse a nuisance.  Though I think I'll have to page-reference the production notes before taking it for FA. Thanks for taking the time to do this btw.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Woo! Thanks Mike. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

John K's use of just surnames and no blue links works for me. Though there are a couple more names (Sutherland and Bowen) to change too. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly the same edit as before blue link or no, so it still doesn't rectify the raised issue at the ongoing discussion which has not ended, which is that it "helps people", a speculative argument that is unsourced. The cast are unnecessary there, it doesn't explain how, if you don't know what htey look like, it makes a slight bit of difference. THe cast weren't there before, it wasn't an issue before, they don't belong there. It is not an acceptable compromise to simply be doing it John's way sans blue link. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Blake, I don't think we can be so definite about any particular approach; the MOS discussion shows that. It is going to be a matter of minor inconveniences and benefits, and it is not possible to know what steps serve readers best. We have to consider redundancy and placement. For example, readers come to this article in different ways. Maybe they've never seen the film, maybe they have, maybe they did but a while ago. I would say the biggest inconvenience here is that even though we mention the key actors in the lead section and the infobox, they are not tied to the roles until after the plot summary. One has to go down then up to see who plays Nick or Dale. Maybe some readers are okay with that, maybe some aren't but don't have the know-how or the compulsion to say so. I think mentioning key actors' surnames and unlinked is the least intrusive way to address that inconvenience. What inconvenience does it add? It is indeed redundant, but I think avoiding links and first names help because it is commonly noted that the names are mentioned "upfront" in the lead section and infobox. In my opinion, for this film's particular circumstances, the tradeoff is acceptable. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)