Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive1

I Not Stupid edit

I intend to nominate I Not Stupid for GA status on Sunday night (Singapore time). After working on it for over three months, I believe the article is ready. There are a couple of unreferenced statements, and several sections (especially the Plot section) may need a little copyediting. Please give me feedback, and point out any other problems I should fix in the next 48 hours - or before a GA reviewer looks at the article. (Note: This article will never reach FA status - systemic bias makes it very difficult to find information on Singaporean movies. No comments about FA status, please - only GA.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just at first glance, here are a few of my impressions. There are an overabundance of red links and too many duplicate wikilinks. For example in the intro, I Not Stupid Too is wikilinked twice in the same paragraph. Work on the style issues, then we can deal with content.--WilliamThweatt 15:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the red links are names of actors or movies which do not have Wikipedia articles. I should consider creating articles on them.

I'm not sure when internal links should be repeated. For example, if I Not Stupid Too is linked to in the lead section, should it be linked to in the Reception section? What about the Sequels section? As for the names of the lead actors, since they're linked to in the lead section, should they be linked to in the Plot and Cast sections? Are there any guidelines regarding this?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia Manual of Style-Links for guidelines on internal wikilinks--WilliamThweatt 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one reference came before a punctuation mark; this has since been fixed. Though well written, the article does need thorough copyediting. This is why I requested peer review - many peer reviewers point out problems with prose. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few brief notes, the pictures should be placed a little more artfully, where possible they should be adjacent to the corresponding text and used to fill white space when necessary, for an example see, GoldenEye. The cast doesn't need a table, see Wikipedia:When to use tables, and it would be more helpful if you were to add a sentence or two beside the character name describing their respective parts, see Batman Begins. And the "this is the cast" and "this is a political satire" sentences can be removed, that's obvious from the section headers, although I'd change "Cast" to "Starring". Most, if not all, of the red links should be nixed. And overall the text is a little clunky, a lot of dry statements of fact. I'd recommend copyediting for smoothness and flow too. Doctor Sunshine 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have as many as four screenshots of the movie? Does Special:Upload not stipulate that at most one screenshot can be used in an article? —Goh wz 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence may be too unnecessarily verbiose: "In an 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." Just say, "The Iranian film, Children of Heaven, inspired Jack Neo to write about children, a trend that continued in his next movie, Homerun, which was a remake of Children of Heaven." Also, for the first and last points in the Political satire section, can examples be provided? Also, I don't think a paragraph about the sequel is necessary if the reader can go visit the film article itself. The differences should be stated and cited there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]