Talk:On the Job

Original research in reception

Bluesphere, what is your source for the statement, "Critical reception for the film was mixed to positive upon release, with most reviewers noting its thrilling action sequence and production values, but criticizing the plot for being convoluted." I don't see anything in RT and RC that says this explicit consensus exists. Is this your own personal interpretation of the review aggregators? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I read through all the reviews listed in RT and Meta and it's supposed to be a lead-in summary of all these reviews. So technically yeah, they're mine. Bluesphere 09:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what we call "original research", and it's disallowed by policy. Unless you can cite a reliable source that has come to those conclusions, it needs to be removed from the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, okay. It appears that two reliable sources from top Philippine media conglomerates say that it's a "critically acclaimed" movie. So I just rephrased the sentence and supported it with references. 11:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the reviews that pointed out flaws?

I can't help but notice several mixed/negative reviews just disappeared. Why is that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Restored it, sorry about that. I thought I was giving more weight with the positive reviews, didn't catch that there were mixed ones I added. Bluesphere 06:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Screen International and Film Biz Asia (though it's defunct now) are major trade magazines, so I'd kind of expect to have their input. It just seemed kind of weird to remove them, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Film Business Asia Review

We will have to get rid of the review as the ref supporting it is dead and nowhere to be found by a Google search. Slightlymad (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have to get rid of it. See WP:KDL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

So just reinsert it and delink the url inline? Slightlymad (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why delink it? The URL was valid at one point, and someone may locate an archived version of it. That will probably not happen if the citation is delinked. There are other search engines besides Google. Also, Film Business Asia was a print magazine, which means someone may find a copy of the review in a library. If we keep all the metadata intact, it's easier for people to locate archived versions. Sources don't have to be available online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. But you see I'm about to submit the article for GAR and this single linkrot may raise concern during the process. Slightlymad (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't. As a print magazine, the content is still verifiable, and the link worked at one point; I read the online review myself. Dead links are explicitly allowed per the GA criteria if they are more than just a bare URL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

NRP, may I request an archive of refs 26 & 46? The IAbot tool tends to skip them when I run it. Thanks Slightlymad (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Think I got it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad i understand give me any job i will do it Sailendra dubey (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:On the Job (2013 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Review coming soon. Freikorp (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   I'd replace "hired gun" with something a little less colloquial.  Done

   "by 2012, however, they reappraised the script" - specifying the year here raises the question of when the story was written and when it was originally appraised.  Done I can only add the original appraisal time frame as I'm unsuccessful at pinpointing as to when the screenwriting took place.

   I'd replace "rave reactions" also.  Done

   Specify a time frame regarding the American remake and miniseries.  Done

   Plot

   Thelma needs more introduction - who is she other than their boss? Is she in prison as well? Is she a gang-leader? Comment: The movie does not provide ample details on this character.

   I'd merge the third and fourth paragraphs.  Done

   Production

   This is important. You need to make it very clear in the prose that the whole 'true story' angle is only based on what one persons claims he did. The story is extremely dubious in my opinion. Rather than introducing it as an accepted fact, you should reword it to clarify this crew member stated he performed contract kills from inside prison. This should be clarified in the lead as well.  clarified

   "The crew member was a service driver who occasionally worked as a hired gun," - this is worded confusingly. Was he a service driver and a hit-man while in prison, or was he a hit-man in prison and a service driver for the film crew?  Clarified.

   The second half of the first paragraph in this section needs inline citations.  Done

   "amounted to ₱47 million" - can we get a translation here in brackets? Pick a more popular currency and specify what that amount equates to.  Done sort of. Comment: I'm using Template:To USD for this one but it won't let me add a comma for a condensed value. Would that suffice, 'cause I doubt it will...

   I'd change "LRT" to "Light Rail".  Done

   I'd replace "a hectic process" as it reads too unprofessionally.  Done

   It's a shame the Red EPIC camera doesn't have a Wikipedia article that can be linked to (or does it?). Can you explain more to the reader how a camera can "light an entire set". I'm confused. Comment: I presume it talks about the quality. it's difficult going to technicalities about this camera but here's how the Esquire source (ref. 6) described it: Employing the magic of a Red Epic camera, which is able to work exceedingly well with available light, the director was able to light an entire set at once, without having to bother adjusting degrees of brightness when a scene requires moving to another part of a location.

   No worries. If that's the best you can do with the source that's fine. Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

   Release

   "On the Job was screened and had its world premiere" - Cut "was screened and"; it's redundant.  Done

   Future

   Firstly I think 'Future' is a bad section header. How about 'Adaptations'?  Done

   "A US adaptation of the film has been confirmed" - When? When was it confirmed?  Done

   "The remake will be produced" - When is it scheduled to be produced? Comment: Does not say when.

   "it was announced that a six-part sequel miniseries was to be created" - Is there any indication where this will happen? Comment: Does not say either.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   One instance where this is needed as indicated above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   As indicated by talk page and history.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   How can you justify having the film festival poster AND the infobox poster? Fair use guidelines state images should be included if their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". How does this image help the reader understand the topic in a way the infobox image can't? Personally I don't think removing it would be detrimental to understanding the subject either.  Removed Ditto. :)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once the above issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

   Very pleased with improvements. Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Distributor

Hollyckuhno, I advice you to go to the source's link and read page 3, where it states that the movie is produced (the production companies) by Star Cinema and Reality Entertainment and presented (distributors) by Reality Entertainment and Well Go USA. You will not see anywhere that the movie is also distributed by Star Cinema; most production companies don't necessarily distribute films that they fund. Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the third-party source that I provided (which by the way unlike the production notes you provided as a source is much more reliable and verifiable) that Star Cinema distributed the film locally. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hollyckuhno:, the author of that piece said that the movie will be released by Star Cinema in July (even though it's actually August), which is why I'm hesitant to use it as a source. And could you explain what makes the production notes unreliable? The author of that dossier is actually Well Go USA, the North American distributor. Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To be considered reliable, it has to come from a third party source, it has to have a date of publication, it should have an author, and it should have the name of the publisher. Now all of these characteristics are non-existent in your press released productions notes. As for the inconsistency in the given release date, the article was written before the actual release so it doesn't matter. Release dates can be moved from its original date. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A matter of opinion. The article is a FA and its sources are examined to be reliable as well as high-quality since it passed the criteria (See the review page here). Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Having been a featured article does not justifies the reliability of all of its sources/references, at least not for the reference provided in the distributor info because it was clearly written by someone employed by Well Go USA. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's your two centavos. The article underwent an extensive featured article review; the sources were examined, and editors deemed them reliable and high quality. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm done with your BS. I've decided to keep your revision even though I feel violated, considering I'm collaborating with a lightweight such as yourself. Adios. Patience, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Then let's have a consensus of who's source is more reliable. As simple as that. I just hate to see wrong info that are being treated as if they are facts. Hollyckuhno (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 07:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc i like it's job Sailendra dubey (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• On the Job (2013 film) → On the Job
• On the Job → On the Job (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that gets a vast majority of the views for "On the Job", only seconded by the miniseries based on the very same movie. There is no particular reason it needs to be disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICT. cookie monster 755 03:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.