Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive2

I Not Stupid

On 26 December 2006, the article's GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT. This led to a little argument on the article's talk page, involving myself, ExplorerCDT and Ryan-D. Due to stress and real-life issues, after 26 January 2007, I stopped working on or commenting on the article. However, after The Best Bet's successful DYK nomination, I feel like working on the article - and aiming for GA status - again.

The two main concerns ExplorerCDT raised were choppy prose and poorly-placed images. In addition, due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean movies is difficult (and at times, impossible). For more information, please read the last few sections of the talk page, especially the argument. How can I improve I Not Stupid to ensure it meets the GA criteria?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of sequels and spin-offs needs referencing (otherwise I'm just assuming it isn't true). Change "Plot" to "Plot summary". From the 4 photos within the "Plot" section, remove two and place one of the bottom ones to the left (and maybe lower). Reference the plot summary (just write down the name of the DVD and the distributing company). Compare with other articles based upon movies. Improve the wording within the plot summary (ask other Singaporeans or experienced users within the wiki film community). Overall, it's a good article, thoroughly researched and worked upon. Don't know why it didn't get a GA. Definitely deserves it. Zuracech lordum 10:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Zuracech lordum. I will try to address your concerns one by one:

Unreferenced last paragraph of Sequels and Spin-offs section: That paragraph was added by another user (Jedd the Jedi) after I stopped working on the article. I know the information in that paragraph is true. If I can find reference(s) for that paragraph, I will add them. If not, should I remove the paragraph?
Unreferenced Plot section: I previously asked the Films WikiProject why the Plot sections of many Featured Articles are unreferenced, and they replied that Plot sections do not need references because the movie itself is the assumed reference point (read the discussion).
Renaming of Plot section: Most featured articles use the section name "Plot": Halloween, Ran, Tenebrae, Witchfinder General and November. Some, such as Casablanca and Jaws use "Synopsis". As featured articles represent the best articles on Wikipedia, I think it would be easiest to simply emulate them, although I'm only aiming for Good Article status.
Screenshots in Plot section: Your idea of cutting down the number of screenshots from four to two, and aligning one on the right, would be a good way to address the concerns regarding images. In addition, the remaining two images will need captions. I will post on the talk page, seeking a consensus on which two screenshots should remain, and which should go.
Prose in Plot section: I am aware that the prose is choppy. I would appreciate suggestions on how to address this concern.

Apart from the images and prose in the Plot section, the Production section is my biggest concern. The lack of available referenced information (due to external systemic bias) is making it difficult, if not impossible, for me to improve the quality of the prose. Fortunately, a friend has found several newspaper articles about I Not Stupid on LexisNexis, and Gmailed them to me. Hopefully the information in these articles, and the information already present in the Production section, will help me write a comprehensive Production section with compelling prose. If the articles are of no help, and I cannot find any more referenced information, should the Production section be removed? (This paragraph addresses everybody, not just Zuracech lordum.)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know it to be true and if you think you can find references for it soon then there's no need for it to be removed. Attribution is important but it is not wrong to assume that good faith exists amongst serious wikipedians. Others may disagree.

For information regarding the production, does there not exist any information on the The Straits Times? The Singaporean newspaper is said to be one of the leading ones in Asia unless I'm mistaken. Also, considering the movie seems to be a major landmark within the country's movie scene, there's bound to be some material. That said, I do not know how to obtain information from Strait Times and I wouldn't be surprised if the website asks you to be a subscriber to find information.

For the prose, I presume you may receive help from members within Wikiproject Films.

Finally, if worst comes to worst, you may want to contact (even if it seems like there will be no response) the directors and the producers of the movie. After all, everyone wants to be mentioned. This may sound far-fetched but I am currently in touch with the writer of a comic book series whose article I'm currently editing, much to my own surprise. Just ensure that the information you get, no matter from what source, is verifiable. Zuracech lordum 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find references for it, of course I won't remove it. The question was whether I should remove it if I can't find references for it, and the article is otherwise ready for a GA nomination.

Yes, The Straits Times is one of the leading newspapers in Asia. Although payment is needed to read the online version of the newspaper, free versions of Straits Times articles are available on LexisNexis (and my friend, who has access to the archive, Gmailed me several articles on I Not Stupid).

Regarding the prose, I will seek help from the Films WikiProject and League of Copyeditors.

On the talk page, I previously discussed the possibility of arranging an interview with Jack Neo (my idol, and the writer and director of I Not Stupid). However, how do I get the interview published in a reliable source, so it is not deemed original research?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production is an integral part of an article for a movie and hence I presume it would probably be weak without it. Point regarding original research is noteworthy but instead of asking [Jack Neo]] whatever it is that you think the article lacks, you may instead request him for direction to the sources that discuss the movie in further detail. As director or producer or writer he may be better aware and may be kind enough to share the information. Also, he could have a blog or personal website where he muses or gives information to fans (I think the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer wiki page obtained information from the director's blog) I'm not sure what wikipedia's stance is on blogs of such sort. An alternative that could be cited would be academic information obtained from an institution or tertiary university (I don't think that's OR), if any such exist. Zuracech lordum 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]