Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid Too/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Not Stupid Too[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean movie about three youths who have a strained relationship with their parents. My goal is for this article to attain GA status. Please look through the article and point out issues (such as prose issues) that would prevent the article from attaining GA status. Note that due to systemic bias, referenced information on Singapore-related topics is scarce.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mention in the cast section who has returned from the first film, I Not Stupid and mention about any recastings. If there are reasons, that we can cite, talking about the casting, then those should be included too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done That would be original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts...

  • The title I Not Stupid Too should be italicized throughout the article. Do the same for newspapers in the article body and in the citation templates.
    Done How about names of other movies? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the "Cast" section? It is very sparse, and some actors and their roles are already identified in the "Plot" section. Any chance of working in the rest and not worrying about a "Cast" section?.
    The Cast section includes a reference not mentioned in the Plot section. Unfortunately, the website is in Flash and you have to click Credits to get the information. I strive for uniformity among the GAs I write about Jack Neo movies, so if there is a consensus to remove the Cast section, it should go from my other GAs as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evaluate the article to make sure it has non-breaking spaces. For example, have one between S$1.41 and million in "S$1.41 million" and one between 9 and February in "9 February". This should be done for date= and accessdate= fields in citation templates, too.
    Er, why? Because the MOnSter is full of metapedian bias and its recommendations make editing difficult for exopedians, forcing them to do stuff that does not really help readers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Sequels", can the talk show be backed by a reference for these details?
    Noted Several months ago, I tried to find a reliable online reference for the show (which I know exists) but failed to find any. These two sentences also included in I Not Stupid, a GA, and a discussion at the talk page led to a 3-0 consensus that said sentences did not need references. I will again try to find references, but if I cannot find any, are they necessary and should the sentences be removed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I removed the sentences about the talk show. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the release date, is there something better to cite than IMDb? It is not considered reliable by some editors, and I think something as prominent as the release date could be verified elsewhere and give everyone peace of mind.
    Noted Unfortunately, referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce, so finding an alternative for IMDB would be tricky. I checked I Not Stupid's two references for the release date; one was a dead link, while the other did not actually mention the release date! (How careless the GA reviewer and I were.) Is DVDAsian a reliable source? If so, I would replace the IMDB reference with one to DVDAsian. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that could work... I just was not sure about IMDb because it is not quite warmly received in the FAC process. Maybe if you don't plan to go that far, it won't matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed that a screenshot was added to the "Plot" section, and I am not sure if it belongs. It may be worth looking at MOS:FILM#Non-free images. There needs to be critical commentary for a screenshot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are screenshots no longer allowed in Plot sections? I always try to choose screenshots which ilustrate major themes, not just major plot events, and get Haemo to help me write the fair-use rationales. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing... without reliable sources, an editor is reading a lot into a film to extract any major themes to then illustrate. It's kind of like writing a "Themes" section with your opinion on the film. Some films are going to have themes that are well-explored by independent sources... a couple of examples are Pulp Fiction and Barton Fink. You could also try to illustrate aspects of production if they are irreplaceable, like I did for Fight Club. I know it is tough to do this for such a film that may not have received a lot of coverage... do you think that there is any screenshot that can match any kind of critical commentary in the article? Either about the production or how a critic responded to a specific scene? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the reviews do mention the major themes (such as parent-child communication), but do not discuss specific scenes. The best I can do is choose screenshots of scenes which clearly illustrate said themes and show major plot events. Original research is sometimes necessary when working on such articles, where information is limited. (Did you know that none of the Jack Neo movies have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes?) Be glad you are not Singaporean; if you were, the anti-fair use brigade would make editing difficult for you as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job so far. Here are a few suggestions after a quick read-through that you may want to take a look at.

  • In the infobox, the title is "I Not Stupid Too 2". Should that be altered?
    Done Good catch! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro: "The film explores issues such as poor parent-child communication." You either need to mention another issue or make issues singular.
    Done Changed to "the issue of poor parent-child communication", since my references did not really mention other major themes. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released in cinemas on January 26, 2006, I Not Stupid Too earned over S$4 million, becoming the all-time second-highest grossing Singaporean film." Perhaps you can mention what the first place film is. Also the full date shouldn't be wikilinked.
    Done The highest grossing film, Money No Enough is mentioned in the Reception section, but no harm mentioning it in the lead, I suppose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but lost to Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles." Italicize the film title. Do the same for I Not Stupid in the opening paragraph of the production section, Fearless/Money No Enough/Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles in the reception section, and the four occurrences of I Not Stupid in the sequels section.
    Done Tedious, but thankfully mindless. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to him, communicating with them was difficult,..." Is "them" referring to the gangsters or the extras?
    Done "Them" refers to the gangsters. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plot revolves around the lives of..." Instead of starting the section with "the plot", perhaps the opening sentence or two could be reworded to go straight into the description of the film synopsis?
    I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. In my opinion, understanding the characters is important to understanding the story, as the story revolves around the characters. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you mention anything about the home video release? Features, sales, rentals, etc.?
    Not done Unfortunately, I could not find any information about that. If I could, I would be happy to add it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DVD release detected. "DVD reviews", Teo Cheng Wee, The Straits Times Life!, 20 May 2006. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Gmail the newspaper articles to me, Mailer diablo. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this helps a bit, and if I repeated anything from the other reviewers I apologize. If you have any questions or when you finish addressing these suggestions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It was very helpful. Now all I need is a thorough prose review and the article should be ready for a GAN. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check dabs in the meantime. I'll look up the source database and let you know more feedback. Apologies for the delay. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what Dabs does, but it only pointed out The Business Times, a disambiguation page which mentions two newspapers called The Business Times. Wikipedia does not have an article on either newspaper. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a good idea to delink it for now. Indicate on reflist (Singapore) to avoid confusion. It is also flagged on the article itself. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Links removed. Perhaps we should create an article about the newspaper, fighting systemic bias in the process! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first screenshot appears to be flagged with suggestion to reduce its resolution. Second one might face similar issues.
    Noted I know as much about image policies as you know about chess, so I will leave this to someone who is more familiar with image policies. If you play chess, I retract that part of my comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions can be improved to enhance NFCC rationale?
    Noted As above, will leave this to someone who is more familiar with image policies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Straits Times had a review on the movie as well. You might want to look it up.
    Please Gmail it to me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede : "The film explores issues such as poor parent-child communication.". Perhaps "the issue of" (para 1)?
    Done Oh, dear! Nehrams2020 mentioned this above; I marked it as "done" but did not make the change! Now "done" for real. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy : (lede) "for being" -> "as"?
    Done Good catch. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity : Their parents' (Jack Neo and Xiang Yun) busy schedules give them little time to spend with their children. "Their" refers to who?
    Noted The first "their" refers to Tom and Jerry, while the other instances refer to the parents. I will ask my copyeditor to help refine the sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mailer Diablo 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/I_Not_Stupid_Too/archive2&oldid=1066008015"