Talk:I Not Stupid

Title of series

Suggestion: include the literal translation of the Chinese name which is "the children are not stupid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.47.52 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Preparing the article for GA status

According to production notes from Raintree Pictures,[2] the main characters of the movie were played by the following actors and actresses:

I understand the need for verifiability, but is that sentence really necessary? It makes it sound like there could be some doubt as to who played the actors. Good job on the article, nonetheless. -ryand 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it might be worth creating articles for all the red links in the article (like Cheryl Chan, Selena Tan, et cetera). They have to be created at some point, anyway. On another note, I've edited the references section to use the smaller font size, and cleaned up a few capitalization/spelling errors. -ryand 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, RyanD. I intend to write an article on Money No Enough, Singapore's all-time highest-grossing film. When I am bored, I'll create stubs on the actors/actresses who currently do not have an article.

Regarding the allegedly unneccesary sentence, without it, where in the table would I place the citation? When I created the table, I asked on the Village Pump "Where in the table should I place the citation?" They suggested I add the allegedly unneccesary sentence, and place the citation there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think citations for cast lists are necessary at all; a quick look at the featured article films indicate that none of them have a citation to verify their casts. -ryand 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed it. The information of the source is already in the reference entry, so we can safely remove it from the main text. --Vsion 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Neo's quote

Found one article [2] with Neo's quote regarding the problem of Sg's education system. Neo probably has had many interviews regarding the INS film. What he said can be very useful material regarding the background of the movie and its message. Hopefully we can find more of these references. --Vsion 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cast

The article needs to give some background of the casts. Most readers would have no idea who Xiangyun is, describing her (and few others) as veterans (or something similar) is appropriate given their status in the local entertainment scene. It came from a source, i don't have it now, but it shouldn't be difficult to find. Again some background is necessary, to give that section a better structure and more depth, as compared to a list of unfamiliar names for most readers. Same for the Comedy Night comedians, also Hossan Leong is well-known in the theatrical scene. Their background and guest-starring roles should be noted. --Vsion 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean like the cast section in Casablanca? -ryand 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How on earth did you find out that I was looking at that? This is kinda spooky. :D --Vsion 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. -ryand 12:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; besides the main cast, the table in the Cast section should also mention the supporting cast. I will add more information to the table, though I will have to work within the constraints of my reference. I removed the paragraph Vsion added, because it was slightly POV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Production section

A Production section is essential to achieve "broad coverage", a GA criteria.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find referenced information on Singaporean movies.

I need suggestions for information we should include in the Production section. My list so far: music, writing, shooting, crew and budget.

Once we have finalised the list, it's time to research and find referenced information to add to the section!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that references do not need to be strictly in English. Chinese references are perfectly acceptable if there are no english alternatives. --Vsion 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that Chinese references are acceptable, but it is harder to find Chinese references through Google. I'm considering including Chinese references in Homerun (film), due to the lack of available English references about Megan Zheng's Golden Horse victory (the biggest notability claim). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The production section could include information and quotes gleaned from such sources as the production notes from the film company, blogs or web-postings by the director and/or actors and newspaper or magazine articles written before the film's release. — WiseKwai 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have finally decided what information should go into the Production section, and how it should be organised:

• 1st paragraph: We already have SMA's interview of Jack Neo. If we can find other interviews or quotes from Jack Neo or the directors/actors, or further information on the writing of the script, great!
• 2nd paragraph: This article should be an adequate reference for the budget. We know the sponsors - if we can't find any better references, we'll use the FilmsAsia review. The production notes should provide all the information we need on the production crew. For the song, we only need to mention its title and who composed/sung it.
• 3rd paragraph: The hardest to reference. Information on filming dates and shooting locations.

I think we should be able to find references and finish writing by Sunday, when I intend to submit the GA nomination. Any comments?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Political satire

The entire section on political satire appears to be original research. If you could find some sources...? -ryand 15:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I know the section is unreferenced, but I doubt we can find any reliable references for it.

Anyone who watched I Not Stupid will know that political satire is an integral element of the film. It seemed awkward to simply state that the film contained political satire without further elaboration, so I added the examples.

The answers to the following two questions will decide what we should do with the "Political satire" section.

1. Will the inclusion of the unreferenced "Political satire" section cause I Not Stupid to fail the "factually accurate and verifiable" section of the GA criteria?
2. Will the exclusion of said section cause said article to fail the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria?

If the answer to 1 is "no", leave the section alone. If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no", remove the section. If the answer to both questions is "yes", forget about GA status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the answer to 1 is most likely "yes". See WP:CN and WP:OR. The issue will definitely be mentioned during the GA assessment anyway. As for the answer to 2... "maybe". Best option would still be to try and find reliable sources. I'm not too sure about this though, you could try asking WP:FILM? -ryand 13:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some reviews do mention about the satires [3], [4]; we could use them. I also found a chinese reference from xinhuanet [5], it has many many material we can use. Another thing, the film is more than just political satire; some stuff (especially the em3 issue) are also "social commentary", to highligh social problems and, in this way, advocate changes in government policies and social attitude.--Vsion 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to some queries about this article over on Wikiproject Films, I would encourage that editors to continue to look for ways to reference the political satire section without having to gut the section or do away with it entirely. It's been awhile since I've seen the film, but I'm wondering if there is a way to incorporate the information into the plot section, or is the satire so veiled that there's no way to factor it in to the plot? Or, perhaps the political satire could be referred to in the reception section? What did the public think? Were there letters to the editor of magazines or newspapers? (Or is that sort of thing allowed?) Perhaps a visit to a public or university library or newspaper archive will reveal more? — WiseKwai 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was able to locate a reference that covers approximately half the information in the political satire section. Another paragraph is a quote directly from the film, and is self explanatory, I think. It's quite a good quote, very revealing. The film itself is a reference for that, same as the plot section (cast lists, too, can be drawn from the films themselves - from the closing credits). The comment about white shirts and symbolism of the PAP's purity is still unreferenced, but perhaps another source, not related to the film could be used, just as proof that the PAP wears white as a symbolism of purity? Perhaps the same kind of referencing could be done for the comment about expatriate workers: find a source that comments on foreigners being hired because of the perception that Singaporean workers are inferior? Or the two problematic paragraphs could be jettisoned, with the major points about political satire left intact. What does anyone think? — WiseKwai 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Using a source unrelated to the film as citation for the section on political satire would count as synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, I think. I agree that the two unreferenced paragraphs can be removed without losing most of the meaning - and they should be removed if we can't find proper sources for them before we nominate the article for GA status. -ryand 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, see, that's why I brought it up here. Thanks, Ryan, for the pointer on policy. It's very helpful. — WiseKwai 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Plot sections of most FAs on movies are unreferenced, given the argument that the movie is the assumed reference point. Could this argument apply to the Political satire section too, letting us leave it unreferenced? If the policy on synthesis of published material serving to advance a position applies, referencing the section would be impossible, and we should just whack it instead.

A closer analysis of each paragraph in the section:

• The first paragraph has only one sentence: "I Not Stupid is noted for its political satire." Does that need a reference? Doubt it.
• The reviews we have should mention the criticism of the Singaporean education system mentioned in the second paragraph.
• The third paragraph - on Terry's mother personifying the PAP - is already referenced (the sentence on the white shirt may need to go).
• This review could reference the quote about fish in Singapore in the fourth paragraph. Feel free to remove the kidnapper's quote - I doubt it can be referenced.
• The last paragraph can be safely deleted. I don't think any of the reviews mention these issues (they are less significant than the education system and PAP).

Why did I think this would be so difficult? We're nearly there.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

The Plot section could do with a screenshot.

Are these screenshots usable under fair use?

Which screenshot should we use? One that shows an incident described in the Plot section would be ideal.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Film screenshots count as fair use under WP:FAIR. -ryand 09:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Which screenshot should go into the article? Preferably a screenshot that corresponds to an incident mentioned in the Plot section. (For example, if there was a screenshot showing Mr Khoo firing the employee, it could be aligned near the paragraph about that - but there isn't such a screenshot.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the film, so I can't help you there. But there are more (and larger) screenshots here if you want to use them. -ryand 16:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the images in the link you provided are not screenshots from the film itself. Perhaps they are screenshots of outtakes. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad; like I said, I'm not familiar with the film. I'm sure there are more screenshots out on the Internet, though - if not, I could try to obtain the DVD and capture some screenshots if you want (but don't expect anything too soon, I'll be overseas over the next week or so). -ryand 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you get the DVD and take several screenshots before you go overseas. Ensure that the screenshots correspond to events mentioned in the Plot section, such as the kidnap. After watching the movie once, you will definitely want to watch it again and again, so the money you spend on the DVD won't get wasted!

As a side note, you may wish to list I Not Stupid as a SGAE "sample article" on a movie. Do you have MSN Messenger or Google Talk? If so, I would like to add you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I told Terenceong, I like to think that I still have a life outside of Wikipedia. As such, I'm going to have to decline your request; you may contact me by email if you like, or leave a message on my talk page. As for the screenshots... give me a couple of days. I'll try to get some. -ryand 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to obtain the DVD as of yet, but I have found several screenshots online: [6] [7]. Take a look? -ryand 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

From the dimensions and the uniform appearance of the images on the two websites (also here), those look like production stills, which would have been released to the media as part of a press packet to promote the film. The screenshot license would not be accurate. They would need to be uploaded under the {{promophoto}} license, which has a lot of caveats and requirements and is getting a lot of attention from image deletion specialists. Perhaps {{Non-free fair use in}} could be used? An actual screenshot from a DVD is easier to verify for copyright sourcing. Or, if a press pack from Raintree could be obtained, then all the sourcing (photographer's name, terms of usage) would be easy to submit. — WiseKwai 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn things, screenshots and licensing. You see, I've just realized that even if I managed to grab the DVD, I'm currently (owing to various circumstances) using a machine that can't play DVDs. I'd need to find someone else's computer to borrow in order to take any... I can still do it, but I'm not sure I can get it done before the rest of the article gets ready for GA.

Normally, screenshots can be obtained from overzealous fansites; but I can't seem to find any for the I Not Stupid films... -ryand 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be okay, guys. I think my local video store has a copy of the DVD for rent. I'll have a look in the next day or so. I should see the movie again, anyway. I can't guarantee how soon I'll get around to it. What's the time-frame for applying for GA status, anyway? A deadline might make me move quicker. — WiseKwai 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chill out, Ryan and Wisekwai. You've forgotten that the writer of this article (me) has watched I Not Stupid a million times, and can tell what's a screenshot and what's not. I checked the three links you provided, and most of the screenshots are real screenshots from the movie itself (a few are outtakes/promotional material). I'll upload one or two suitable screenshots and include them in the article. Leave all the rest to me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sadly, I checked my rental place and they don't have the movie. The only Singapore title available is Be with Me, but that's another story. I'll have to keep checking around. Even if I don't need to do any work on the article, I'd still like to see I Not Stupid again. — WiseKwai 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the image in the infobox?

The infobox is supposed to have an image of the VCD/DVD cover. However, Image:I Not Stupid.jpg is a red link. Was the image deleted? If so, why? What can we do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-uploaded it. The deletion log is here, which says it was deleted for lack of licensing information, which could mean any number of things: lack of source information, unknown copyright status or lack of a licensing tag. The image now has all that (not saying that it didn't before; I'm not sure why it was deleted), plus a fair-use rationale. It should not be a problem. — WiseKwai 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Why I failed article for GA status

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 26, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections, only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie.

2. Factually accurate?: well cited, though.

3. Broad in coverage?: no, q.v. well written critique

4. Neutral point of view?: yes, but bland on discussing issues that need to be explored

5. Article stability? seemingly so.

6. Images?: terribly placed, too many images per word count (refer to image guidelines), aesthetically unpleasant.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

Just because your friends like 28 citations and say it's good doesn't mean it's GA quality yet. --ExplorerCDT 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on image issues

I asked ExplorerCDT for clarification regarding the issues he brought up in the GAR above, and this was his response:

The images in I Not Stupid are all located in one section (minus the one in the infobox), under "Plot". The four images cause stacking problems, jar left right left right, clutter the space it shares with the text, and just are aesthetically unpleasant. There was a policy guideline that said you should use a proper ratio of words to picture, I can't remember the number but I think it was something like 250 or so. I'll look and see if I can remember where that was when I have time tomorrow. But, in terms of aesthetics and balance, there are just too few words to justify four pictures in one section. Now, what I'd suggest, seeing that other sections are without pictures, is to move some of the pictures to currently unpictured sections...say, one picture per section. Also, the captions need work. Think of the audience reading the article. Write the captions for someone who has never seen the movie and only has a minute to glance through the article (not really read it). As if you were picking up a National Geographic magazine and only had time to read picture captions, but none of the articles. Throw together those and the rest of what I suggested and I'll have no problems approving a GA. Right now, it's sorely not ready. —ExplorerCDT 07:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So. What do all of you think? -ryand 07:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

I have filed a GA review on I Not Stupid. This is not an attempt to overturn the failure of the nomination, but an attempt to post, and seek, further clarifications regarding the issues that caused the nomination to fail. Please feel free to comment at the GA review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

image stacking?

• Saw some discussion of image stacking. For future reference, see ‎Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links.
• --Ling.Nut 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments from a copy-editor

Hi there. I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. While copy-editing, I noticed that, overall, the text was grammatically correct. However, it's very choppy and has hardly any flow. This is a bit hard for me to resolve, since I'm not familiar with the film at all. Instead, I think I'll give some tips on how to improve the prose. I'm not familiar with GA criteria, so I can't comment on that; just think of these as ways to improve the article.

For example, let's take the "Production" section.

In a 2002 interview with the Singapore Medical Association, Jack Neo said that the Iranian film, Children of Heaven, inspired him to write about children, a trend that continued in his next movie, Homerun, which was a remake of Children of Heaven.[3]

1. Okay, but explain further. What does this have to do with I Not Stupid? When were Children of Heaven and Homerun released? After Homerun, what happened? Did he enjoy working with children? Is that why he wanted to continue with "I Not Stupid"? How did he begin working on "I Not Stupid"? Did he have to pitch around before finding a studio that would produce it? In its current state, this does not flow at all into the next paragraph. Note that this sentence is kind of on the long side. Also, one sentence paragraphs are usually something to avoid.

I Not Stupid was produced by Raintree Pictures on a budget of S$900,000,[4] sponsored by Bee Cheng Hiang, Yeo Hiap Seng and Sunshine Bakeries.[5] The child stars were selected through an audition of over 50 children.[6] Besides writing and directing, Neo also composed the theme song, which was sung by Chen Guorong. Daniel Yun, the CEO of Raintree Pictures, served as executive producer, with David Leong and Chan Pui Yin as producers.[7]

2. These sentences just seem randomly thrown together; there's no order to these thoughts. There must be some way to arrange this better. Perhaps try chronologically. The text should flow like a story instead of listing random facts.

The film was shot at Braddell Westlake Secondary School and Westlake Primary School. It was distributed by Raintree Pictures and United International Pictures.[8]

3. Why is this a separate paragraph? And what do these two sentences have to do with one another? The first sentence begs some expansion. When was it shot? While school was in session? Did it use those students as extras?

Here's a sample way of rearranging the text in this section to achieve better flow:

1. Talk about Children of Heaven and how this inspired him to make I Not Stupid
2. What happened next? Did he immediately start writing the film? Did he pitch the idea first to studios before having a written script?
3. Consider explaining how the various players (sponsors/producers/actors) came on board, instead of just listing them.
4. Describe the shooting. How long did it last? Where was it shot? Any difficulties? Why were the schools chosen? Anything interesting happen while shooting?

Hope this helps. Gzkn 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to systemic bias, there is a lack of available referenced information on most Singaporean movies, including I Not Stupid. My friend suggested getting an interview with Jack Neo (not impossible, since one of his children studies at my school), but even if I managed to, how would I publish the information in a reliable source, that I can use as a reference? The lack of information, and poor prose, partially resulted from having to work within the constraints of my references. Could you take a look at the other sections? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I guess you have to work with what you've got. A reorganization of the current Production section might still help achieve better flow. I copy-edited the rest of the article, and left some comments in the text. The plot section is also quite choppy in places. For example:

Mr. Khoo (Richard Low) is a belligerent businessman who owns Good Friend Ba Gua, a company selling ba gua. An enmity develops between Mr. Khoo and Mr. Liu (Jack Neo) after a fight over a parking lot. Mr. Khoo fires an employee over an accident regarding handling a machine. The advertising company for which Mr. Liu works hires an American, John, as the Creative Director. Gzkn 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some minor copy-editing to address some of the issues you raised in your comments. As for choppy prose, that will take slightly more work for me to fix. What do you think of the Reception and Sequels sections? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How should the images be aligned?

When I initially added the screenshots to the article, all were aligned to the right. Shortly after, Ryan-D left-aligned two screenshots, "for variety". In his failing of I Not Stupid's GA nomination, ExplorerCDT criticised the alignment of the screenshots, saying that "the four images cause stacking problems, jar left right left right, clutter the space it shares with the text, and just are aesthetically unpleasant." To address this criticism, I restored the original alignment, but Quadzilla99 reverted me, stating that the original alignment introduced "ugly blank gaps" in the article.

I certainly do not want an edit war over how the images are aligned. We must form a consensus regarding this issue, as it will affect the chances of a future GA nomination.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• The right alignment, which I prefer, wouldn't cause so much white space if the lead and production sections were expanded beyond one sentence "bullet point"-style paragraphs (which was another criticism I offered when I reviewed this article's GA-candidacy). Paragraphs need, at a minimum, three or more sentences. This would make the lead and production section large enough, in many small screen resolutions to make sure the infobox doesn't extend into the Plot section. User:Gzkn makes some good suggestions above. But the big issue is that all the images (the screenshots) are just in the Plot section, while three other text sections have none. For balance, you need to intersperse them into other sections. 1 section, 1 photo would work rather admirably. Consider also, there's an informal Featured Article Candidacy recommendation to use one image for every 250 words (as a minimum). Lastly, remove the 200px parameter from the thumbnail images. Thumbnails for GAs and FAs should be governed by the user preferences as they've set, regarding thumbnail images (can be set, by user, to display a thumbnail image at a default setting anywhere from 150px to 300px...I set mine at 300px, FYI). We shouldn't impose parameters when inserting images as thumbnails. —ExplorerCDT 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

• Wouldn't moving images from the Plot section to other sections create a situation in which the screenshots have no relation whatsoever to the associated text?
• Shouldn't Wikipedia accommodate the average, non-registered user who does not set user preferences and gets giant thumbnail images cluttering articles due to lack of size parameters?

No offence meant, just issues that crossed my mind while reading your reply. -ryand 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots don't belong in other sections. In an article about another Jack Neo movie, Homerun, I uploaded an image of Megan Zheng holding her Golden Horse Award, and added it to the Reception section, but it was deleted.

I'll see how I can lengthen paragraphs in the Plot section. Some of the shorter paragraphs should be merged. According to OpenOffice.org, the Plot section has 875 words. To meet the informal guideline, I have to bring that up to 1000 words.

As for the Production section, how much original research am I allowed to introduce? Or will the article still offer "broad coverage" without the section? Finally, how should consensus on image alignment be determined? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How much original research am I allowed to introduce? None. And I can't believed you actually asked that question.—ExplorerCDT 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First: There is no such requirement here on wikipedia or in real life to always in any article about a movie to make sure images are always next to their relevant text. Nothing says: "Screenshots always have to be in the plot section." So, any statement seeking avoid doing the requested improvement is based on specious reasoning and ought to be abandoned. Write a damn good caption, and you can put an image anywhere. Right now you have a 3000-, maybe 3500-word article. And all the images are packed into a section with (as you state) 875 words. Second: Wikipedia should accomodate all users. Because parameters set by users, resolution with their browser, preferences here at wikipedia, etc. etc. there are a gazillion possible combinations for how a reader views a page, and by imposing restrictions through parameters makes it difficult for others when the restrictions don't match up with their own configuration. Universality is the rule. Remember, we write wikipedia not for ourselves...so we shouldn't care how it renders to us, but to the reader, and the reader in general means making the article "universal." By removing size parameters to accomodate user preferences you make it so that all readers will be able to read the article without restrictions that make it work for only a few. Third: If you think all you have to do is add 125 words to the plot section, square up with one part of an informal guideline (ignoring the rest, as I will show you later) and you can write off my complaint, you're (a) ignoring my entire complaint and its calls for balance by spreading images throughout the article. (b) seeking only to try to meet bare minimums and not seeking improve the overall article. When you say "this is all I have to do to barely get by", you're just making an excuse for not doing good work. That is antithetical to Wikipedia's interests and spirit and you should be ashamed of having such an attitude. (c) ignores the suggested guideline (though informal) which exists (and is recommended on the featured article criteria page as a good suggestion) to avoid common complaints while about candidates for FA status, it's a good guideline for Wikipedia in general...and something I do apply on a limited basis to GA. It states:

2. "There are too few pictures! There are too many pictures! The graphics suck! The borders on that table are too fat!" There's no catch-all remedy to this kind of objection. Just try to make it look attractive, and avoid both excessive clusters of pictures and overlong stretches of unillustrated text wherever possible.

• (a) Try not to overwhelm the text with "too many" pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline. Try to space images out throughout the article and keep pictures from bumping into each other.
• (b) Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection. Having at least a few images for any FA is a good idea, and having about one image per screen is also valuable from an aesthetic perspective, drawing more readers into taking the time to read the article.
• (c) Look at the page on different platforms and browsers to catch things other users might see that you aren't picking up.
• (d) Check other related articles and see what they do, or investigate the standards of an umbrella WikiProject for other ideas on how to visually present the material.

If you're only focusing on 250 words per image...you're ignoring the rest of the guideline, including the rest of the dictates of the guideline in Sentence (a) where that 250 word per image is mentioned and flatly ignores (b). If you don't remedy the article as per my suggestions (and those in keeping with guidelines, policies), you haven't corrected the elements of this article that caused me to fail it for Good Article in the first place. And while I hate to be a prick, I, and other users, will in good faith be compelled to fail it again and again until they are remedied. And...don't even think about taking it to FAC like this. If you're going to refuse to improve the article, there's several other places on the web where you can take your laziness. —ExplorerCDT 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, you need to consider: Image Use Policy, discussion of images in the Manual of Style, and if you might need it Picture tutorial. —ExplorerCDT 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot location: Well, I was pretty sure that there was something in the fair use laws that required screenshots to be used only to accompany critical commentary on the film itself - but maybe I was using too strict a definition of "critical commentary".

Image size parameters: I understand your points completely, but it doesn't change the fact that, taking into consideration the original size of the uploaded images, not defining size parameters will cause clutter on the page of almost every user that does not set size preferences. Perhaps you could refer me to a guideline or a policy that recommends we leave the size parameters blank?

And finally - there's really no need to insinuate laziness, unless you really believe that people are spending time editing this article in bad faith. No one works here, we all just help out. There are several other places on the web where you can take your superciliousness. -ryand 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

location: IMHO as long as it's placed in an article, I think that assuages any doubts regarding that that provision about it being near "critical commentary." The fair use provisions exist not to dictate where in an article the image is displayed, but that we don't upload images under "fair use" and improperly use them on user pages, or on places where the image subject is not discussed. The fact that article discusses the subject of the image, i feel, would comply with such a guideline (if it exists) no matter where in the article the image is displayed.

parameter: user preferences can allow a user to set their preferences so a thumbnail will display between 120px and 300px with the default being 180px for those who do not set it. If you leave the parameter blank, it'll show up per settings, and in the absence thereof, the default setting. I'll get the exact policy citation for as soon as I can, but WP:IUP, and other image-related guidelines cited above discuss the matter at length...and state that thumbnails shouldn't have size parameters set.

finally: I'll always assume bad faith when someone refuses to do the right thing and to do so with the indolent attitude displayed above...supercilious or not. I actually take pride in my superciliousness, and applaud you for your superfluous verbosity. —ExplorerCDT 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

... Well, whatever validates you. Thanks for clarifying my doubts. -ryand 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I also think the images seem too clustered in the plot section. Two of them could be moved to other sections. The cast section is a prime spot for one right-aligned photo to fill in the white space next to the table. Write a caption to explain who the actor or actress is and you're in business. The caning photo, for example, could go down in the reception section and given a caption that touches on the negative aspects of streaming.

Have a look at other GA articles and see how they are using images and captions and emulate them.

I don't think increasing the length of the plot section is advisable. It's long enough, and for some folks at WP:FILM it might even be too long. — WiseKwai 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Initially, you only mentioned one part of an informal guideline (250 words per picture), without informing me about the other parts, so I only tried to remedy the part that you raised. Now that I'm aware of the other parts of the guideline, I will think about how to ensure the article meets all parts of the criteria.

I believe in the saying "credit where credit is due". If the article doesn't deserve GA status, failing it is the right decision. Even if the article is awarded GA status, I have no intention of nominating it for FA status. I know that I Not Stupid will never become an FA.

Would the article still offer "broad coverage" if the Production section is removed? Due to systemic bias, it is very difficult to find information on Singaporean topics. The Production section contains all the production information I could find from hours (yes, hours) of Googling. If I'm not allowed to introduce original research, I don't see how I can find enough information to reduce the choppiness of the prose in that section. As for how original research would help, since one of Jack Neo's children studies in my school, I could get an interview with him, and ask him about the production of I Not Stupid.

Ryan-D raised several important points, regarding the scope of fair use and how thumbnails will appear to anonymous readers. Wisekwai also suggested several excellent ideas for repositioning the images.

If I am convinced that it is impossible to address the concerns and improve I Not Stupid to reach GA status, I will leave Wikipedia. My rationale is simple: if it's impossible for I Not Stupid to reach GA status, it would be even more impossible for Homerun (film) or Money No Enough, as there is less available referenced information on these films. In that case, why should I write for Wikipedia? (Of course, if the concerns can be addressed, I'll stay and address them.)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias is one way to put it, another way would be supply and demand. If you express your interest in the subject and can arrange an interview I'm sure any number of online film websites would be happy to publish it. Either interview him yourself or probably you could set up an email interview between Neo and a film reviewer, even supplying them with some questions or topics you'd like covered. Once it's published, it's smooth sailing from there. Doctor Sunshine 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is that the contributors are overly-concerned with WP:OR and this had hindered the expansion of the article, especially in the "production" section. The two policies WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV are clearly defined and sacrosanct. On the other hand, some aspects of WP:OR are still subject to clarification. If every new addition to the article is scrutinized and reverted for any slight hint of violating WP:OR or WP:CITE, it is difficult for the article to grow. I feel that a slight change in the way this article is "managed" would help. --Vsion 07:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then help out and expand the article, if you can. As I see it, the article is only being "managed" by one editor, who has taken a lot of unnecessary flak for doing so. If anything, the expansion of the article is being hindered by the lack of dedicated editors. It is, after all, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -ryand 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan-D, for acknowledging that I've taken plenty of flak for working on this article. In fact, with all the flak I'm getting, I'm starting to doubt whether Wikipedia's the right writing community for me. Firthermore, my real life's in a mess, and school's stressing me out, and I have very little time to work on the article.

I don't own the article. I need the assistance of other dedicated editors, to help me find references, copy-edit, and do whatever it takes to improve the article to GA status.

I personally believe that the verifiability policy inhibits creativity, bites newcomers and creates systemic bias. When writing articles, I usually adopt an "if I can find a reference for that information, add the reference, if not, leave it unreferenced" approach.

No matter how brilliant my prose is, if I want I Not Stupid to achieve GA status, I must ensure it meets all GA criteria, including verifiability. In History exams, no matter how good my understanding of the topic is, if my answer is not structured in accordance with the LORMS guidelines, I'll certainly fail.

I asked: "How much original research is allowed?" ExplorerCDT replied: "None". Does this mean that "every new addition to the article" must be "scrutinised and reverted for any slight hint of violating WP:OR or WP:CITE", thus making it "difficult for the article to grow"?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

• might have thought it would be interesting to include why the movie was so-named.
• comments on prose and proposed draft left here.
• i've got a ton of whitespace (due to current image placement) viewing the article in its present form on my 19". Chensiyuan 09:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The current section detailing the plot is both convoluted and very poorly written. I suggest fixing that before even thinking about nominating for GA again. Manderiko 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Manderiko, I am aware that the Plot section, which I wrote in September 2006, is poorly written. Back then, I wrote as I watched the movie. Since 2007, I have gotten into the habit of jotting down the main points/events while watching the movie, and writing the Plot section based on these points. I intend to rewrite the Plot section using this new method. What do you think? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced paragraph (not added by me)

On 20 February 2007, User:Jedd the Jedi renamed the "Sequels" section to "Sequels and Spinoffs" and added an unreferenced paragraph about a TV talk show named "I Not Stupid Forum". I have watched the talk show and can vouch for its existence, but could not find any reliable sources on it from a Google search. Could others help me find a reliable reference? If no reliable sources can be found, should the paragraph be removed (it may cause the article to fail the "factually accurate and verifiable" section of the GA criteria)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Such things are probably not going to be contested; usually when they are raised it just means the article is in bad shape. Speaking from experience. Chensiyuan 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt I Not Stupid is in bad shape - in fact, if we weren't aiming for GA status, I don't think anyone would care that the paragraph is unreferenced. I was the first to be concerned about the unreferenced paragraph - it was also raised by Zuracech lordum in the article's second peer review. Does "probably not going to be contested" mean that I don't need to add a reference for it? Even if I don't, the paragraph still needs a rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources will be good, but if you cannot find web sources, then its fine. You can rewrite it no problem, without sources. This article is okay, and people are unlikely to raise such issues unless this is on FAC. Terence 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As above, once you have exhausted your options, especially as I've mentioned on the review a subject that would be rather obscure considering the Geographical Location, then its probably safe to keep in considering the quality of the rest of the article. - Boochan 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a 3-0 consensus that it is not neccesary to reference that paragraph, I will not delete it - instead, I will rewrite it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone update the to-do list?

• The Production section has already been added.
• Fair-use screenshots have been added.
• The Reception section has been sufficiently expanded.
• YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable.
• I can't access the search.ft reference.

I would update it myself, but the template formatting is too complex.

I propose the following GA to-do list, in order of priority:

• Rewrite the Plot section. (I will watch the VCD, write the plot in point form, and rewrite it based on the points).
• Expand and improve the Production section.
• Rewrite the third paragraph of the Sequels section (according to the section above, there is a 3-0 consensus that this does not need a reference; we can remove the paragraph if the GA reviewer disagrees).
• Address the image issues.
• The Political satire section may need expansion (I'm not sure if this is neccesary).

Hopefully I will be able to clear the "GA to-do list" item by item, and renominate the article within 2-3 weeks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

According to a comment Homestarmy posted on my talk page, I don't need to address any issues with images, so I struck that out. "Rewrite the third paragraph of the Sequels section" has been done - I struck that out as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (Failed)

See Good Article Criteria for further details.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Overall, I don't think the article is quite ready for promotion to Good Article. The prose is relatively sloppy, as it contains many redlink (although not cause for GA failure, it's a personal request). The plot should have the proper spoiler templates fixed to it, alerting the reader of any spoilers which they may encounter. Much of the prose reads poorly and shoddily; it needs an all around copyedit and or rewrite. The "Reception" section rambles on, talking about other movies which have little or nothing to do with I Not Stupid. The line "Critics praised the film for its humor, uniqueness and touching a raw nerve among Singaporeans" is POV (without multiple sources), and should be appropriately sourced with several citations. "The film sparked debate about the negative aspects of streaming in the Singapore education system. In an interview..." could read "The film was the subject of debate among the negative aspects of streaming in the Singapore education system." In "Sequels and spinoffs" (which should read "Sequels and spin-offs") does reference 34 cover the entire paragraph? If so, it should be placed after each corresponding sentence it entails. The images do not have the properly allocated Fair Use rationale; therefore the article fails immediately, regardless. Ultimately, the article needs work and might possibly prosper under another Peer Review. NSR77 ^T_C 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NSR77, thanks for your review. I know the article is not ready; after the GA/R closed, I intended to continue improving the article and nominate for GA it on 8 July (two weeks later). Unfortunately, Homestarmy submitted a premature nomination. Further elaboration on your reasons for failing the article would help me address them. Here are my responses to the reasons you provided:

• "Much of the prose reads poorly and shoddily": Yes, I am aware of that! I had planned to spend the two weeks to rewrite the Plot section and file a request with the League of Copyeditors. Could you give a brief review of the prose in each paragraph? In my opinion:

• The "Reception" and "Sequels" sections are fairly well-written.
• The "Production" and "Plot" sections have substandard prose.
• No comment on the "Cast section"; it consists of only a table and one sentence.
• I'm not too sure about the Political satire section.

Bear in mind that the GA criteria only demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". I'm 15 and my English is at a near-native standard (practically everyone here uses Singlish). Despite having a good grasp of spelling and grammar, I lack the native speaker's natural feel of the language that is required to write prose which flows well. In fact, I joined Wikipedia to improve my English and writing skills. Hence, it would be asking too much if I had to write prose which is "of a professional standard" (FA criteria). This is one reason why I'm only aiming for GA, the other being that finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult (talk about systemic bias), so the article will pale in comparison to movie FAs in terms of comprehensiveness.

• "[The prose] contains many redlink [sic]": Due to systemic bias, nobody has created articles on some members of the cast (Selena Tan and Huang Po Ju) and production crew (Daniel Yun). Although most of the red links are relevant, and I don't find them excessive, feel free to point out unneccesary redlinks which you think should be removed.
• "The plot should have the proper spoiler templates fixed to it": Even before I made my first edit to the article, the Plot section had spoiler templates. The spoiler templates were removed by Resurgent insurgent on 24 May 2007. There was a recent discussion about spoilers which led to changes in the spoiler policy, which currently says: "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis" or (fictional) "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional. To insert a spoiler warning in sections of this kind requires a compelling reason. These sections should never have blanket spoiler warnings covering the whole section".
• "The "Reception" section rambles on, talking about other movies which have little or nothing to do with I Not Stupid": The only mentions of other movies are:

• "Money No Enough was the only Singaporean film with higher earnings prior to I Not Stupid's release" - since I Not Stupid's second, the movie which is first probably deserves a mention.
• "In 2006, the sequel I Not Stupid Too grossed over S$4 million, replacing the original movie as the second-highest grossing Singapore movie of all time" - if the sequel did not overtake the original as the all-time second-highest Singaporean film, I would not have mentioned its box office performance.
• "This claim was disputed by Alliance Entertainment, who distributed Jack Neo's first movie, Money No Enough, stating 70,000 VCDs of that title were sold" - failing to mention that Alliance Entertainment disputed the claim would be a breach of NPOV.

Did I overdo it? If so, which mentions should stay, and which should be removed? Explain your answer (oops, that sounds like a Singaporean exam question).

• "The line "Critics...Singaporeans" is POV (without multiple sentences)": That's a topic sentence, which summarises what the paragraph is about (critical reviews) and improves the flow of the article. I checked several film GAs - they did not have references for the topic sentences of paragraphs about critical reviews:

• 300 (film): "Since its world premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 14, 2007, in front of 1,700 audience members, 300 has received generally mixed reviews." - this topic sentence is not referenced.
• Batman Begins: "Batman Begins was positively received by the majority of professional critics." - this topic sentence is not referenced.
• Battlefield Earth (film): "Critically, the movie was also a disaster and reviews were nearly unanimously bad." - this topic sentence is not referenced.

The paragraph references four reviews (11, 12, 13 and 6, as of time of writing). Do I need to use all four to reference the topic sentence? Note that when failing the article's first GA nomination in December 2006, ExplorerCDT commented: "well cited, though".

• "In "Sequels and spinoffs"...does reference 34 cover the entire paragraph?": There are only 32 references as of time of writing, so I'm not sure what you mean by "reference 34".
• "The images do not have the properly allocated Fair Use rationale": The article has five images - a movie poster and four screenshots. On the movie poster's description page (which was not uploaded by me), there is a section entitled "Fair-use rationale". For the four screenshots (which I uploaded), I provided the following fair use rationale: "A movie screenshot, used on article of said movie, is fair-use. The screenshot is for informational purposes and does not harm the movie makers commercially." Since I lack experience with images, the fair use rationale I provided may not be adequate; if so, please tell me how to provide a complete fair use rationale.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

With no disrespect to NSR77, this most recent GA review is a tragedy. First of all, for some reason, it was listed (prematurely) under Television, instead of Films and related articles. I can't help but think that might have had an effect on how the article was approached in the review.

Second, it appears that folks involved with this article aren't on the same page. It would help, if before the next go-round on the GA review process that the intention to list it be announced on the talk page first. Then, when there's a consensus that it's ready, submit it.

That said, having another set of eyes on the page is never a bad thing, so even if the most recent review more or less restated the results of an earlier GA-nomination run -- the article simply wasn't ready -- it wasn't necessarily a waste of time.

I do agree with Hildenknight/JLWS, though, that many of the reviewer's criticisms are unfounded.

• The images DO have fair-use rationales.
• The use of spoiler tags is now discouraged. Though controversial, efforts to place spoiler tags in film articles is being dealt with proactively by a powerful and swift-moving cabal of editors. This change is fairly recent, so maybe the reviewer hadn't been clued in. See WP:SPOILER for details.
• Information about the film's sequel and distribution is totally appropriate and encyclopedic.
• I also do not find the use of red links excessive, and I'm an editor that generally dislikes red links. Okay, well, there's one, for catalogue title, that I'm not sure about. But most of them are for names of actors or companies and things that could at some point be articles. This seems to be a subjective thing.

As far as such issues as topic sentences that cause citation concerns and weak prose, I'll wait until the article undergoes a revision that Hildanknight has said he is planning. — WiseKwai 11:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad there are contributors who are dedicated to fixing the article. Also, it did appear the article was nominated rather prematurely, but, nonetheless, I had to fail it. The current Reception section is fine, in fact, but the article could use a trim down of some red links (not necessary, but appealing to the eye). For proper Fair Use see the image on this page for the appropriate licensing. Otherwise, keep up the good work; the article is certainly on the right track. NSR77 ^T_C 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WiseKwai about images, spoiler tags, sequel and distribution, and red links. And, speaking as an English teacher, topic sentences don't cause weak prose, they're rather a precondition for reader-friendly prose with good flow, so keep doing them. They can indeed cause citation concerns, but nothing that can't be solved.

Sheesh... I'm not used to addressing criteria in this very formal way, it feels like a straight-jacket. I'm very used to reviewing FAC articles, but not GA candidates. So let me just tell you what I think, as if this were up for FAC: the big problem I see is one of proportion. The central, most interesting, most sophisticated aspect of the subject is cultural and social. I would very much like to see more text about the background: the Singaporean education system, the debate sparked by the movie, the way the system changed as a result of the movie. What there is, is pretty good, but I want more. Also more about how these issues are dealt with in the movie. Not in the form of original research, of course, but by using the media discussion. There must surely be plenty of that, since the film got so much attention and interest. If this were up for FAC, I'd oppose it for not enough cultural context.

By contrast, I want to see less text in the plot summary. I'd suggest going through it and seriously considering every word: is this needed? Will this be used in my discussion? What is this needed for? Etc. Don't keep anything in there just because it's something that happens in the movie. Only keep stuff that's relevant to the central events, and/or the central themes. Kill your darlings. If it's desired, I can try for a shorter summary myself, for discussion. Well, in so far as somebody who hasn't seen the movie is capable of it! Bishonen | talk 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Article milestones

In attempting to track this article's history and milestones, and properly archive its many peer reviews and GA nominations in the ArticleHistory template, I uncovered a bit of discussion that took place in a Good Article Review in January 2007. At that time the GA/R was a moot effort because the article hadn't ever been listed as a GA. Nonetheless, the discussion is probably valuable, and for purposes of the Article History template, I felt it needed to be archived here. It is from here. Just click on the link that says "show" to read the discussion. — WiseKwai 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[From Wikipedia:Good article review 101486389: When failing I Not Stupid's GA nomination, ExplorerCDT raised three main issues: images, lack of details and poor writing. Here are my responses regarding each issue: Images: When I inserted the screenshots into the Plot section of the article, all of them were right-aligned. It was Ryan-D's idea to "rearrange the screenshots for variety". If aligning all the images to the right, or even removing some of them from the article, will cause it to pass the "Images" section of the GA criteria, you are welcome to do so. I re-aligned all the images to the right. Does that address this concern, or do you need some images deleted? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Lack of details Due to systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singapore topics is considerably harder than finding referenced information on American topics. Findng 27 references for this article is a remarkable achievement. In addition, GA primarily caters to shorter articles, and does not demand "comprehensiveness", only "broad coverage". For both of the above reasons, the article is written in summary style. ExplorerCDT commented that the article "does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices". The "political satire" section previously contained more details, which I removed after other editors raised concerns that they may be [[WP:|original research]]. If adding a few unreferenced statements will address this concern, without causing the article to fail criterion 2, I will do so. If addressing this concern will cause the article to fail criterion 2, I will give up on GA status, and leave Wikipedia. If, for reasons outlined above, the lack of details is deemed acceptable, I will focus on other addressing other issues. Poorly written Although this article has undergone an extensive copy-edit by E@L, I agree that the prose still needs improvement. Is there a WikiProject dedicated to copy-editing articles? Just found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Maybe someone there will be willing to help. — WiseKwai 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Which sections are well-written? Which need the most work? Are there any recurring mistakes? Be specific in suggesting improvements. The Taiwan earthquake has disrupted my ability to access and edit Wikipedia, so I may not be able to respond in a timely manner. I filed this GA review not to request that the failure of the GA nomination be overturned, but to post, and seek, clarifications on the issues that cause the article to fail. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate for the article to be placed on hold for up to 14 days (not 7, because of the Taiwan earthquake), to give me time to address the issues, ultimately resulting in I Not Stupid passing GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: There's nothing wrong here that can't be fixed in a week or less, IMO. The lead doesn't seem to mention the social commentary in the movie, and the resulting public dialog. The article does have some two-sentence paragraphs... all of which would probably take about 30 or 45 minutes to fix. I'm not aware of anything in WP:WIAGA regarding image placement. I found some promising-looking sources on http://scholar.google.com/, but frankly, it's looking OK already. In addition, I'm sure I could find untold numbers of good references on LexisNexis... Some of the online sources may be questionable... I'm not saying they are... I would have to look at each one in turn to see if it's too promotional, too blog-like or Geocities-like. At this point I haven't looked at any of them, but just skimming the reference section, they look respectable enough. --Ling.Nut 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, the Taiwan earthquake has disrupted my ability to access and edit Wikipedia, and school starts on 3 January. That's why I'm asking for 14 days. While I know the prose needs work, pointing out specific problems would help me greatly. I'll check out the sources on Google Scholar, and if any of them are useful, I'll add them as references. What's LexisNexis? If it does not suffer from systemic bias, I hope it will provide me with some useful references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Comment — To clarify, I rearranged the images for two reasons - firstly, for aesthetic appeal, and secondly, because the initial all-right alignment caused the images to stack out of line with the intended associated text. In hindsight, ExplorerCDT was right in that that there are too few words to justify the number of images. I'm not sure which screenshots should be kept and which shouldn't, though you might want to take a look at the featured film articles at WP:FA#Media for ideas. I understand your disappointment, especially taking into account all your work on the article, but like Ling.Nut mentioned above, it's not all that far from GA status. Take a break to destress and come back to work on the article again when you're ready. -ryand 06:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I would be lying through my teeth if I said I wasn't disappointed. However, ExplorerCDT raised several valid concerns. I filed this GA reivew to post, and seek, further clarifications, which would help me address these concerns. Regarding the images, I don't see any stacking out of line in the version you linked to (perhaps your screen resolution is lower than mine). Let's right-align all of them again, before deciding which to nix. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC) delist.Sumoeagle179 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I Not Stupid never was a GA (the nomination failed), so it can't be delisted. I'm filing this GA review to post, and seek, clarification on the concerns addressed by the GA reviewer. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Seems all want it to not be GA. Take it off this page now.Rlevse 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) If the problems can honestly be fixed, it doesn't seem very fair to just delist it when the review is still going on, when the Foie Gras review started it was almost unanimous to keep, yet of course, as it went on, most of us changed our vote when the situation became clear. Homestarmy 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page still open

Feel free to comment. — WiseKwai 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Plot section

Knowing that E@L would be away from Wikipedia this month due to real life issues, I sought the assistance of another copy-editor, Haemo. Thanks to him, the prose in the Production and Political satire sections has improved considerably in the past couple of weeks. However, during the most arduous task - rewriting the Plot section - we had several disagreements, mostly because he has not watched the movie and is not familiar with the plot. Hence, this section is for Wikipedians who have watched I Not Stupid to give feedback on the new Plot section, and to help Haemo and I settle any disagreements over the Plot section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the kidnapping important?

Since we want the Plot section to be concise, Haemo and I decided that the new Plot section should not contain a paragraph on the kidnapping. Does anyone object? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I've seen the film, but it seems like the major plot points are covered, and it reads much smoother overall. It's a big improvement. Personally, I wish you'd consider retaining the two screenshots that were dumped, and place them in other sections of the article. The swatting photo would fit well in the political satire section. But I know this is a sensitive topic for some reason, so I won't press it. Just a suggestion. It won't make or break the article. — WiseKwai 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Object, the kidnapping is quite a notable part of the movie. Maybe a sentence or two of the kidnapping should be fine. It took quite a good couple of minutes for that section. Good work on the revised plot of the article. Terence 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nine years late, but object: the kidnapping is in the movie to point out that artistic skills have their uses as well. Not covering it is a shame. Banedon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What about Selena?

Haemo says that he has difficulty connecting a sentence about Selena with the rest of the Plot section. I think that she plays a major, though not essential, role in the movie. Where do you suggest a sentence/paragraph about Selena be placed? Or do you think the Plot section should not mention her? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think. I would lose Selena if I were you. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

GA nomination postponed to 15 July

I originally intended to nominate I Not Stupid for GA status on 8 July. As Haemo is busy in real life, I have decided to postpone the nomination to 15 July. Doing so allows me to file a peer review and request for copy-editing before nominating it again. Please comment at the peer review. I hope I Not Stupid passes GA! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid screenshot 3 orphaned and I Not Stupid screenshot 1 being used in Political satire section

The rewrite of the Plot section has led to I Not Stupid screenshot 3 becoming orphaned. What should we do with it?

I Not Stupid screenshot 1 has also been moved to the Political satire section. Is the use of this screenshot in the Political satire section allowed under fair-use?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, screenshot one is fine where it is - if indeed it is political satire, the image clearly falls under fair use.

With the first screenshot, tag it with {{subst:orfud}} - it'll be deleted in about seven days.

Will ^(talk) 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is not itself satire; the subject of the section is. I think the full consequences of the concept described, kiasu, can't be fully grasped by a Western readership without it, or something similar. Since the image is being used as part of a critical analysis of this facet of the movie, it's certainly valid fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I love the use of screenshot 1 in the political satire section. It really does help illustrate the section. As for screenshot 3, one option would be to put it in the cast section, and write a caption that names the actors. If the image is used in an article about the film, that is fair use. The alternative is to let it be orphaned and eventually deleted. — WiseKwai 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Terry, Boon Hock and the kidnappers appear Screenshot 3, so Wisekwai's suggestion of placing it in the Cast section is not feasible. It's probably best to let the deletion run its course. I have a copy on my hard drive, ready to upload if it's ever needed in future. There's a 3-0 consensus that using Screenshot 1 in the Political satire section is allowed under fair-use policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot 3 has been deleted. Perhaps the remaining screenshots should be re-numbered; this is not an urgent task, however. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi, I copyedited the plot section just a short while ago, so I've removed this tag. If you object, feel free to discuss it here. --Haemo 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes for GA reviewer

• Due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean topics is very difficult. Finding 34 references is already a commendable achievement. I don't think the Production section can be expanded further.
• There's a 3-0 consensus that the last paragraph in the Sequels section does not need to be referenced. If you intended to put the nomination on hold because this paragraph was unreferenced, please remove the paragraph instead. Doing so would shorten the article by 324 bytes (I recall there used to be a guideline that the optimal length for GAs is 15 kB).
• Factual questions and clarifications regarding the film and Singapore should be directed at me; if a few sentences need copy-editing, badger Haemo instead.
• I need to sleep now; I may add more points tomorrow.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I think that you've addressed the concerns of the previously failed GA rather well. The article is better for the copyedit and I understand that not all Singaporean film stars will have their own articles due to the systemic bias. Perhaps you could work on that next?! Good work, well done. The Rambling Man 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it listed at WP:GA? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's listed! So go celebrate! — WiseKwai 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man forgot to add I Not Stupid to the GA list when passing the nomination; Mike42 addded it while I was typing this post. However, he forgot to update the counts and "recently listed". For the celebrations, feel free to leave barnstars, balloons, chocolate or bakkwa at my talk page. As the tagline of I Not Stupid goes :"when was the last time someone praised you?" --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on I Not Stupid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101204127/http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/comedy/inotstupid/inotstupid.html to http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/comedy/inotstupid/inotstupid.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013013/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_cast.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_cast.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104051910/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_prodnotes.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_prodnotes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061223130011/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/js/fs.asp?ref=%2Finotstupid2_160106.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/js/fs.asp?ref=%2Finotstupid2_160106.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927143615/http://www.gov.sg/nd/ND02.htm to http://www.gov.sg/nd/ND02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909081227/http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/ to http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot issues

​​To those in concern, I am happened to pass by an article I remember watching this, but I want to object that move about the revert over the grammar plot over the plot that is correctly updated and factual. The old plot however has lots of incorrect plots and its not that covering the film well, and I have to agree on the new plot, in under a condition to fix all the grammar mistakes. Moreover, that plot you revert had not violated the WP:MOSFILM guidelines, though it can be improved better. I not rest easy until you revert back the plot and retweak the article. Thank you.122.11.214.197 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Note MOSFILMPLOT specifically says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The version of the plot that's not currently in the article is also riddled with grammatical issues, e.g. "Terry frequently embarrass himself for his actions and self-pride amd was reprimanded by his overprotective mother" -- this should clearly be "Terry frequently embarrasses himself with his actions and self-pride and is reprimanded by his overprotective mother. I think if you have issues with the current plot, there is some room for expansion (a word counter says it's currently 576 words), but not to the point of the version currently not in the article. Banedon (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I need to back up this article, but I have to disagree the revert. The plot for that new one is however correct and I understand that there got some grammar issues, so rather than reverting back to the original plot, a simple editing will be appropriate, and besides that the case that the new plot is actually correct and also needs improvement. So as a rule of thumb, PLEASE use the new plot and amend any grammar issues or fix anything if possible. 122.11.214.197 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The "new" plot is littered with grammatical errors and really hard to copyedit. In fact the reason why I manually reverted is because I started copyediting it, realized it could not possibly have been this bad (since the article is a GA), and searched the history. Is there something that isn't in the current plot that should be there? Banedon (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The plot that would have been correct include, in order: Lee being the new teacher, the conflicts between Liu and Jerry Khoo, the Creative Director promotion, Kok Pin and Tiong Meng bully but no one is punished (it's not the former being scolded, according to the scene, and the part where Liu's mother was speaking to the principal), Selena say she want free will as freedom, Liu and John compete for the post, hospital scene, and also the ending. Also, the cast name in parenthesis is not necessary as it is the norm for many movie articles (I seen many of the articles already, this one is outdated) I already said, the new plot is correct, but I understand you have issues over the copyedit and grammar error, so Why note ask this WikiProject, that one, and this to make a discussion and try to rework on the new plot? That way, it will be fair, and it is a win-win situation (keeping the new plot before the revert, and while edited to fix copyediting) 122.11.214.200 (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You could perhaps propose the plot here and ask someone capable of grammar copyedits to sift through it and make it functional for a GA. Otherwise I'd suggest you stop trying to replace the plot section with a bunch of badly formed sentences. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(summoned from WT:SG) The proposed new plot (from this revision) does not meet MOS:FILMPLOT guidelines for overall length; it is 980+ words long which is well over the recommended upper limit of 700. I don't see how the proposed plot is much of an improvement even if it receives a thorough copyedit – there's a lot of excess detail (e.g. the name of the bakkwa company, overly long descriptions of subplots like the bullying incident and temple visit), and the current plot summarises most of the storyline much better than the new plot, especially the last two paragraphs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)