Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Homerun (film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homerun (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have finished writing this article and will soon take it to GAN. Any and all feedback on how I can improve the article is appreciated.

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide

[edit]
  • "shares the same storyline" - it can't be identical. Perhaps "a similar storyline"?
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This comedy emphasises" - you should specifically state what the genres are, before into plot detail, IMO
Addressed, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am surprised that this article does not exist. One day, I might write an article about all our disputes with our northern neighbours. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, can it redirect to somewhere on Singapore or Malaysia? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link now points to Foreign relations of Singapore#Malaysia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released in cinemas on 7 August 2003" - wlink dates
All dates wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neo and his wife were moved to" - you might want to name him in full here for those who skip the lead
Changed by someone else. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles in refs need to be in italics
All newspaper titles in references italicised --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on a budget of S$1.5 million." - wlink currency
All currencies wikilinked. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having earned $110 300 from sneak previews" - again, and later in sentence
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult" - no need for the redlink here
Wikilink removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 August 2003," - wlink date again
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released Homerun on 37 screens" - what does on 37 screens mean?
Changed "screens" to "theatres". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, one of Kiat Kun's" - in addition not necessary
"In addition" removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the right to draw water from the kampung well.[1][13][14][15]" - do you need 4 refs for this?
In my opinion, important facts, such as this, and the Golden Horse victory, should have multiple references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but four isn't necessary. You don't need to have four reliable sources reporting one fact; that's just silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the references, as it was over-used and only mentioned that fact in one sentence. The other references went into greater detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comparing Singapore’s disclosure of letters between the two countries to "revealing letters sent to one's girlfriend"" - you don't need to quote this, it's the same as the last quote
Haemo says you're wrong. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 12 September 2007" - date (WP:DATE)
Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malaysian censors announced their decision to ban the screening of Homerun in Malaysia,[14][15][16] citing scenes which "are easily interpreted by some Malaysian audiences’ [sic] as containing political elements related to current issues".[15] Raintree filed an appeal,[14][15][16] " - do you need the 3 cites for both sentences?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best New Performer award with Wang Baoqiang of Blind Shaft.[24][25][26]" - does this need 3 refs?
See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read. Hope to see a FAC in the not-too-distant future. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. I have addressed some of your concerns and will address the rest (and Delldot's) later. Now I have to rush to my Maths lecture. Junior college life is hectic! Unfortunately, I doubt you'll see an FAC in the not-too-distant future. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry; good luck! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delldot

[edit]

Very nicely done. I'll be incredibly picky here and you can ignore anything that's off base.

  • Not sure whether award-winning needs a hyphen.
I believe it does, but will ask my copy-editors. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haemo says having the hyphen and not having the hyphen are both acceptable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shares the same" is redundant.
Addressed during our rewrite of the lead (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link to common words like shoe, only material related to the content of the article or something someone might need to look up, like a rare word or concept.
The shoes are a key element of the plot. Though, if you insist, I can remove the wikilinks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does not look like an Easter egg link, as the "Seperation" section of the Singapore in Malaysia article is about (you guessed it) Singapore's seperation from Malaysia. Perhaps I should modify the link to go directly to the "Seperation" section, instead of the top of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dihydrogen Monoxide also mentioned this in his review above; see my response to his comment. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link changed, see my response to Dihydrogen Monoxide. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinema is a dab link, so maybe check the article for others. Again, I don't know if you need to link common words like this, though this one is more related.
Done. The link now points to cinema (place). I checked the rest of the article for links to disambiguation pages, but did not find any. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every day, the cast woke up early to reach the filming location, exhausting themselves with the long commute and the many running scenes they had to shoot.[7] The child actors' school commitments made the planning of reshoots difficult;[1] moreover, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand due to the SARS outbreak." This is a very long sentence, and I don't know if the two thoughts are closely related enough for a semicolon. I'd use a full stop. Plus, that way you can avoid pesky mid-sentence refs. Also, I think moreover is one of those redundant words list at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy (also, also is another one :-P).
Linking words may be redundant, but they are sometimes needed to make the sentences flow better. How about: "Due to the SARS outbreak, the production team decided to delay post-production work in Thailand. The child actors' school commitments also made the planning of reshoots difficult." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the movie should be italicized.
It was in all but two instances. Both unitalicised instances of "Homerun" have now been italicised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link full dates, e.g. 7 August 2003 -> 7 August, 2003. But don't link just years by themselves, except when it's relevant to the article (which is rare).
Done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then a record for a Singaporean film" maybe "at the time" instead of "then".
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiat Kun and his friends strike a bargain with Beng Soon to play on the team using the other boys' football shoes, in exchange for helping the other boys cheat on their homework." This sentence is a little confusing, since it's not clear who the "other boys" are in the two cases, but I don't know how you'd fix it.
In that sentence, the "other boys" refer to Beng Soon and his friends. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the "other boys" refer to Kiat Kun and his friends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed one instance of "the other boys'" to "their". Hopefully that should make it clearer who we are referring to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...kick Kiat Kun and his friends off the team." this sounds too informal. "For good" and "biggest" are others.
Changed "kick...off" to "remove...from", "the agreement is eventually terminated for good" to "they eventually give up on reaching an agreement" and "the biggest" to "achieving the most successful". Are all of these fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the bad blood between himself and Kiat Kun, Beng Soon decides to arrange a new deal with Kiat Kun, but under more onerous terms. Kiat Kun's initial joy turns to dismay when he realises that the shoes are too large." This is a little confusing, because the first sentence doesn't mention shoes. I guess the reader can infer that the new deal's probably also going to involve shoes, but you might want to specify. If it's basically the same thing, you could say "...renew the deal, but under more onerous terms."
Done. Changed to "renew the deal, but under more onerous terms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is now outdated, as Haemo and I have rewritten the Plot section (see below). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rich boy feels slighted and threatens to throw the shoes away in a fit of pique." I think you could do away with "in a fit of pique", since the earlier part of the sentence made it clear how he felt.
I removed "in a fit of pique" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This causes the boys to get into an argument..." You should avoid starting sentences with this if possible, since it's not always going to be clear what this refers to.
Changed to "As a result, the boys get into an argument..." Is this grammatically correct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but trips on a stone and finishes first, with Beng Soon ending in third place..." According to this, "Using 'with' as an additive link leads to wordy and awkward prose." He recommends using a semicolon instead.
Changed the comma to a semi-colon and "with Beng Soon ending in third place" to "Beng Soon ends the race in third place". Is this fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, he was sick..." Unfortunately sounds like the article is offering commentary, and I don't see how it adds anything. But might work. Also, my instinct would be to go for "he had been sick" rather than "he was", but you might want to see how FA articles on movies do it.
I already started two sentences in the Plot section with "However" and used the word "but" five times in that section. Hence I used "Unfortunately" to avoid repeating words. Would you like to suggest a better word or phrase? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scartol changed it to "Because he was sick..." --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Kiat Kun is running, Mrs Chew goes into labour, leading Seow Fang to run across across a long path littered with broken glass to find a midwife." maybe use forcing instead of leading here?
Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally, Mrs Chew gives birth to a healthy little baby boy and Beng Soon gives Kiat Kun and Seow Fang new pairs of shoes before going to study in England." This last sentence is such a departure from the rest of the plot that I'd almost say to have it as a separate paragraph. On the other hand, short and one sentence paragraphs are discouraged unless you're really emphasizing something. Reading this sentence, I was like, "Whaa? I thought Beng Soon had just thrown away the pair of shoes he'd won out of spite. Why the change of heart?" This might just be a movie thing though. In other news, I don't think the word "little" is necessary here, unless there's something notable about his size. Plus, little is a little informal.
Good point. I will see how I can tweak the sentence. By the way, I removed the word "little" per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably cut the plot section down a little or flesh the other sections out.
Haemo and I have rewritten parts of the Plot section; some of your concerns were also addressed during that rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast section is a little sparse. Could it be integrated into another section? Isn't all this information already in the plot section?
The mentions of the actors in the Plot section are not referenced, while the Cast section contains a reference. I would make a longer and more comprehensive Cast section if I could find a reference for it (other than IMDB, of course). I Not Stupid achieved GA status despite having a Cast list similar to that in Homerun (film). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Singapore's situation in 1965 to that of 2003" sounds awkward because of the in/of use.
  • "as well as the threat of terrorism in the new millenium." I don't get this. How do the riots highlight that?
To be honest, I am not completely sure. Perhaps the chaos and social unrest caused by the riots parellel those caused by terrorism. That tidbit is taken from a quote by executive producer Daniel Yun, which was published in my reference, a newspaper article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deal Beng Soon reneged on" ends in a preposition. Sorry, just being picky here.
  • Some of the info under Political commentary isn't really commentary, it's just about stuff that's happening at the time. Maybe you could rename the section to something like "Political context", or "Political context and commentary" or something. I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, maybe discuss it on the talk page.
That section used to be named "Political satire"; I remamed it to "Political commentary" as not all the commentary was satirical. Most of the allusions are not "context". Are you suggesting I change the name to the overly long "Political context, commentary and satire"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last paragraph under "Political commentary", about the banning in Malaysia, might go better under "Reception".
The Malaysian censors decided to ban the movie because of its political satire, not because it was a bad movie, so I think that the paragraph about the ban belongs in the "Political commentary" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best Theme Song (拥有)" is showing up as two question marks on my screen. Is this foreign characters that I don't have the software for, or is it really two question marks? If it's the latter, what's that about?
They are Chinese characters. Perhaps you should install the Chinese language pack. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, FilmsAsia reviewer Soh Yun-Huei panned its use of political satire, which she felt '[causes] the film to be devoid of innocence and replaced with a sense of agenda and manipulation'." You can probably do away with the in contrast. Also, you might be able to move the causes outside of the quote to avoid having to use brackets. Maybe change the tense to caused.
I use linking words like "in contrast" to vary my sentence structures. If there is a better way to do so, please let me know. Changing the tense to caused would not help, as the tense in the review is causing, but I will consider moving the word outside of the quote. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some print refs have no author listed. Some refs have the date in parentheses and some don't.
If the references do not have an author listed, it is because Factiva did not contain information about the author. Blame my copy-editor Haemo for the inconsistent positioning of dates; he was the one who helped me format the references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very well done. I told you I'd be incredibly picky :-P Definitely let me know if you have questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough and picky review. I have addressed some of your concerns and responded to several others. A few of your concerns will be addressed when Haemo (my copy-editor) and I go through the article again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All but four of your concerns have been addressed. The rest will be dealt with when I next chat with Haemo on Google Talk. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one more thing: I don't think it's necessary to link to the IMDB in both the infobox and the external links section. At least, medical articles aren't supposed to link to eMedicine in both places, which strikes me as analogous. delldot talk 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commas added. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda

[edit]

Review by Jayron32

[edit]

Looks like lots of other have got here before me. I will try to add something new to the discussion. No particular order or importance on these fixes. Just adding them as I come across them:

  • My spelling isn't all that great, but run Satirises through a spellchecker. Isn't it Satirizes? Satiryzes? Maybe its right, but it looks funny to me... I could be wrong tho...
  • Also, is the film really satire? Not all political commentary or allegory is satire, which usually implies a humourous or absurdist slant on things. I have not seen the film, but if it IS satire, such analysis should be a tad more clear in the article.
  • The redlinks should probably be stubbified in some way. Most of these may be good articles, but consider doing a little cursory research to perhaps get at least one good reference and create a stub for each of them.

Overall, the article is quite good, and I would consider it GA quality in its current state! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Homerun_(film)/archive1&oldid=1102444720"