Talk:Homerun (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Homerun (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hildanknight (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Merging Homerun article into this one

A cursory read of the Homerun article suggests that it may be identical to this one. Someone should do a close comparison of the two articles to determine if that article has any info that is not in this one and do the appropriate merging.

--Richard 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, changed my mind. After rethinking what User:Themindset did and looking at the edit histories, it seems obvious that the two articles should be exactly the same because the only changes that happened after the move from Homerun to Homerun (film) were "recategorizations" by a bot. The duplication was caused by User:Hildanknight misinterpreting User:Themindset's move as a "blanking" of his/her article and therefore reverting to a previous version. I am in the process of explaining to User:Hildanknight what happened and why.
--Richard 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article redirect? If so, to which article?

Several months ago, I wrote an article on Homerun, a 2003 Singaporean film. Previously, the article had redirected to Home run, as in baseball. Around a month after the article was created, another user added a disambugation link to the article.

In early July, I was considering leaving Wikipedia, and was wondering whether I should blank several articles I wrote, including Homerun and Google Groups.

Several days after my announcement, User:Themindset moved Homerun to Homerun (film), and Homerun was reverted to a redirect to Home run. I misinterpreted this as a blanking, and after advice from some Wikipedians, reverted the alleged blanking of Homerun. My revert was subsequently reverted. User:Richardshusr explained to me what happened on my talk page, and told me that I could discuss with other editors if I was not happy with this arrangement.

Well, I'm not happy with this arrangement. It relegates the article I wrote to the background. Bear in mind that Homerun helped Singapore win its first Golden Horse Award, and User:Richardshusr told me that with a little work, I could improve the article I wrote to a good article. Homerun (film) has a single disambugation link, directly to Home run. However, Home run does not have a direct disambugation link to Homerun (film). Instead it has a link to a disambugation page which includes a link to Homerun (film) in the list.

Under the current situation, a reader going to the Homerun article, will, after the redirect, require 2 extra clicks to get to the Homerun (film) article. Under the previous arrangement, a reader going to the Homerun article looking for the baseball concept will require a single extra click to get to the Home run article.

A reader looking for the movie will be more likely to search for Homerun without the space, rather than with, and a reader searching for the baseball concept will be more likely to search for Home run with the space. In addition, it is noteworthy that the Multiply article is about the social networking site, rather than redirecting to the Multiplication article (which does not include a disambugation link to Multiply), when one searching for Multiply will be more likely to be looking for the mathematical concept.

Therefore, I wish to know other Wikipedians' opinions on the matter to determine consensus on whether the Homerun article should be about the film, or whether it should redirect to Homerun (film) or Home run.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


There should be no vote. The situation is already fixed in the way it is supposed to be: Home run (disambiguation). In the English language, the baseball definition of home run is by far the most used. Therefore, the baseball article gets the title home run and the homerun redirect. Because there are other uses of the term, the top of the Home run article tells readers about Home run (disambiguation). Kingturtle 01:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Two-way (1/0)

Three-way (1/0/0)

[edit] Homerun article about film

  1. Support as writer of article, and for reasons given above. This means more exposure for the article I wrote and will help it become a good article. If consensus is against this, I will support making Homerun redirect to Homerun (film), as this will not affect the exposure of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. This seems to make the most sense; if someone was looking for the baseball term they can always click the link at the top. Shell babelfish 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per babelfish. Addhoc 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Homerun redirect to [[Homerun (film)

  • I don't know if the pump is the best place to sort this out, but if it is then I would go for this option, with a dab at the top of the article to say "for the baseball home run, see Home Run". The problem comes down the fact that the film is called homerun, without any spaces. I don't know if it extremely common practice for the phrase "home run" to be written without any spaces, but unless it is then the all one word shouldn’t get preference when there is something that actually does use that spelling. As an aside, you said "In early July, I was considering leaving Wikipedia, and was wondering whether I should blank several articles I wrote" - that would not really have been worth your while, not least because they could immediately be reverted again, and the fact that once you have typed or uploaded something to here under the GDFL you don't have the right take it away (thus, in theory, the quality of this encyclo can only get better, but if folks were leaving and taking their words with them then the site could very easily get worse very quickly) SFC9394 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The Village pump is not (IMHO) the place to sort this out. An article talk page or a suitable project talk page is the right place for this discussion. I would have preferred to have this discussion at Talk:Home run but since it was placed here, I have left a note over at Talk:Home run inviting interested editors to come here and express their opinion.
--Richard 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Create Homerun (disambiguation) and list both of them there.

  • Article titles are supposed to be based on the most common usage of a term, and, forgive me, but a Singaporean film is not the first thing someone whose native language is English will think of when they see the word Homerun. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes most sense to me. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homerun redirect to Home run

[edit] Homerun redirect to Home run (disambiguation)

I pick this as this is an existing disambig page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for mediation regarding the REDIRECT of Homerun

User:Hildanknight has indicated in a recent edit summary that he intends to request mediation to resolve the "dispute" over the REDIRECT of Homerun to Home run as opposed to Homerun (film).

I'm not quite sure what mediation will accomplish in this situation. As the above "vote" shows, there is no consensus to do what User:Hildanknight wishes. If anything, the consensus is running against the proposed REDIRECT from Homerun to Homerun (film).

I have reverted User:Hildanknight's REDIRECT of Homerun to Homerun (film) back to Home run on the premise that it is inappropriate to start a vote and then plunge on ahead to implement a resolution that runs counter to the way the vote is leaning. This seems to violate the spirit of building consensus even if there is no explicit policy about it.

IMO, unless the vote count changes dramatically, User:Hildanknight should accept the result of the "vote" as "no consensus" and leave the REDIRECT the way it is (i.e. to Home run with a disambig link at the top of the Home run article). I'm sorry that this makes it more difficult to reach Homerun (film) from Homerun but the general argument seems to be that the baseball usage of the term is far more widespread than the title of a Singaporean film. NB: This statement would be true even if Homerun (film) were a feature film from a major American motion picture studio. Given that Singaporeans are a tiny minority of English speakers worldwide, the logical REDIRECT is to Home run.

That said, if User:Hildanknight does not find this argument convincing, he should consult WP:DR. Informal mediation can be requested via the Mediation Cabal, a Request for Comment can be requested viat the RFC process, or astraw poll can be conducted.

A request for mediation can be made AFTER an attempt has been made to reach a resolution via informal resolution processes. Note the following text from the Request For Mediation page.

Before requesting formal mediation, parties should have made an attempt some form of informal resolution; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Parties may find Requests for Comment or the Mediation Cabal useful steps prior to formal mediation. Disputes that cannot be resolved through mediation, or where the parties are unwilling to take part in voluntary dispute resolution, may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution, including sanctions.

Formal mediation is the second last step in this process (one step short of arbitration). Arbitration is an undesirable forum for resolving disputes. It usually involves one or more parties who are so unreasonable as to be in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL or WP:POINT.

Hope this helps.

--Richard 07:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion in search of a compromise regarding the REDIRECT of Homerun

I think the plethora of options has contributed to the lack of consensus. User:Hildanknight presented three options and five people voted. Thus, the vote count wound up being 2/2/1 but surprise, surprise, there's no consensus.

In his request for informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal, User:Hildanknight proposed three compromises...

  1. Homerun redirects to Home run (disambiguation). This offers 1-click disambiguation for both articles.
  2. Home run offers 1-click disambiguation to Homerun (film) instead of the current 2-click disambiguation. Could be used together with compromise 1.
  3. Homerun (film) offers 2-click disambiguation to Home run, instead of the current 1-click disambiguation. Best used together with compromise 1. Not recommended, however, as this is a lose-lose situation.

I will point out that he could have offered these compromises prior to seeking mediation but that's part of the learning process, I guess. One of the things a mediator will do is to see if a compromise can be reached.

So, let's figure out the next step. I think the problem with the first vote was based on "ideal" situations and everybody voted for their "ideal". Since that approach reached no consensus, we could offer the above list of compromises for a vote but I think items #2 and #3 above list unnecessarily muddies the issue.

I propose that we vote on item #1 with a straight up-or-down vote. So the proposal is to "Change the current REDIRECT of Homerun to Homerun (disambiguation)". An "Oppose" vote either indicates support for the current status quo (Homerun REDIRECTS to Home run) OR support for some other solution.

If we can reach consensus on this solution, we're done. If not, we'll have to talk some more. In any event, we will have to talk more to resolve items #2 and #3 above.

[edit] Support

  1. --Richard 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I suggested it, and consider it the fairest compromise. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. --TBCTaLk?!? 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. -Terence Ong (T | C) 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Other uses of "Homerun" without the space

In his request for informal mediation, Hildanknight states ...

The issue here lies in the spacing of the words "Homerun" and "Home run". I have never seen "Homerun" (without the space) being used to refer to the baseball term.

A Yahoo or Google search will show that many people type "homerun" when they mean "home run (baseball)" although it is unclear whether formal publications such as newspapers ever write "homerun" instead of "home run". I wasn't that thorough in looking at the search results.

What I did find, though, was that there is support to argue in favor of Homerun (disambiguation). There are a number of instances of "HomeRun" other than just the baseball term and the movie. Not all of the following are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but the first one, a program on CBC Montreal probably is.

Homerun program on CBC Montreal

HomeRun Software

HomeRun Media

HomeRun Realty

HomeRun, something related to AppleScript

--Richard 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There currently is a Home run (disambiguation) page. We could list all the uses of both "Homerun" and "Home run" on that Home run (disambiguation), particularly if the other uses you listed are less notable. However, if the other entries are notable, we could also create a new Homerun (disambiguation) page. We could then have the Homerun (disambiguation) and Home run (disambiguation) pages link to each other. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from User:Hildanknight's Talk Page

I noticed their was some conflict concerning the Home run and Homerun (film) articles dealing with the redirects and disambigs and such. I was bold in changing the other uses template on the Homerun article (see). I thought this might settle some issues. Let me know what you think.--Joe Jklin (T C) 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with that arrangement. It was my second compromise offer when I opened a mediation case regarding the article. Hopefully there is consensus for this change. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of mediation case

My understanding is that the mediation case was closed due to the mistaken impression of the mediator that I (Richard Shu) was "handling it". However, the mediator was wrong because I can't "handle it" if I am one of the disputants. That would not constitute disinterested mediation.

However, in light of Hildanknight's comment above, it may be that we are converging on a resolution of this issue. At present, Homerun redirects to Home run which mentions this article in a disambig line at the top of the article. I'm not thrilled with this as I think it gives this film more exposure than it deserves. However, I am willing to drop my objections and wait and see if anybody else objects.

My question is: If this solution sticks, can we drop the other proposals (e.g. for a Homerun (disambiguation) page?

--Richard 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in Political satire section

Is The UrbanWire (used in reference 10) reliable? If not, feel free to remove reference 10, as reference 4 already covers the material.

I added four references (6-9) for the "little red dot" sentence. Among the four, which two are most reliable (or, if all are equally reliable, which two are most appropriate for use as a reference)?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Article does not appear to follow the Film MOS. Sections are out of order, with no compelling reason shown for why this is show. Plot should be before production and cast should use bullet lists not tables. The Political commentary seems worthy of noting, but can it renamed, or incorporated into reception? - Fixed
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Can any better sources be found for where IMDB is used as a source? - Fixed
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Missing section on distribution; no DVD or VHS release in any country? - Fixed
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Why two non-free images in the plot? Neither seems particularly necessary for illustrating what is depicted. - Fixed
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold pending responses and corrections per notes above All issues have now been addressed and article has been passed. Congrats.

Collectonian (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Here are my responses to your concerns:

  • Article does not follow Film MOS: The GA criteria only requires compliance to six parts of the MOnSter (as I call the MoS), in contrast to the FA criteria, which demand adherence to the entire MOnSter, including the style guidelines of relevant WikiProjects. I Not Stupid was reviewed and passed by The Rambling Man, an experienced GA reviewer, despite not following the Film MOnSter. I placed the Production section first because I was concerned that the infobox would push the screenshots down. However, after clicking "edit this page", moving the Plot section forward and previewing, I realised that this is not the case. Thus, if you insist, I can move the Plot section forward. Converting the Cast section to a bulleted list does not make sense. Any information which I add to a bulleted list in the Cast section, beyond what is already there, would probably be original research; referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce.
  • Use of IMDB as a source: I could not find a more reliable reference for information about the production crew. Since the information is uncontroversial, I think citing IMDB is fine. If not, would it be fine to leave that sentence unreferenced? IMDB is also used as a reference for information about Homerun's box office performance, but that information is cited to two other sources as well, so I can remove that reference to IMDB if you wish.
    • Yes I have to agree that citing IMDB for the crew should be fine. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lack of Distribution section: As mentioned above, referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce. I could not find any information on distribution or a DVD release beyond what is already mentioned in the Production section. (Of course, a VCD/DVD release did occur in Singapore; I own a Homerun VCD!)
  • Non-free images in Plot: Both screenshots show recurring themes in the plot. In the movie, Kiat Kun and Beng Soon (and their friends) often get into arguments and conflicts, hence the inclusion of the first screenshot. These arguments are part of the political satire in Homerun; Kiat Kun's friends represent Singapore while Beng Soon's friends represent Malaysia. Running is another recurring theme in Homerun; in fact, reference 7 mentions a member of the cast commenting that shooting so many running scenes was very tiring! My Wikifriends know that I dislike the anti-fair use brigade. Though, if you insist, I can remove the images.

If I sound too argumentative or belligerent, I apologise. Since Homerun (film) will be my second GA if passed, while you appear to be an inexperienced GA reviewer, this review is a learning process for both of us.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in with a couple of thoughts. IMDb has been questionable in the past because it has user-submitted information that may not always be correct. However, I've thought IMDb was acceptable for cast and crew information of released contemporary films. (I've heard of inaccuracies about this information for older films, though.) Can I assume that the cast and crew information for which you cite IMDb is available in the film's credits? Maybe as a different approach, you could write a kind of <ref>Listed in the film's credits</ref> tag instead of using IMDb.
Secondly, non-free images have been tricky to use in film articles on Wikipedia. Traditionally, there has not been much issue with non-free images in Featured and Good film Articles. However, these days, editors are looking for a more explicit purpose for non-free images to be included. What you argue for the inclusion of the screen shots can easily be disputed by another editor. Anyone could present their own take on themes and choose from a wide selection of potential screen shots for the film. With the Plot section, it is difficult to tie non-free images into that. The Plot section is a primary source, and it's questionable to act as a secondary source of sorts and personally decide what images fit there. I've usually discouraged images in the Plot section for this reason, though it's possible to include one using secondary sources; see Dirty Dancing. One of my own works, Fight Club, uses a variety of non-free images outside the Plot section, and the images are explicitly tied to the content in the article body. In looking at Homerun, I think that a non-free image could exist to support this sentence: "The final scene in the movie shows the Chew siblings standing before a long muddy path, which symbolises the uncertainly faced by both the newly independent nation in 1965 and the country in transition in 2003." What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that Haemo's edit shows that IMDb can make mistakes. My interest was piqued about this correction, and The New York Times matches Haemo's corrected information. I think this clear reflects the weakness in citing IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Yahoo! Movies a more reliable source than IMDB? If so, I shall consult it instead of IMDB when I write my next film GA. In this case, the New York Times could be used as a source. Thanks, Haemo, for finding a more reliable and accurate source! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the re-organization issues are minor, so I went ahead and did them, since they don't affect the article at all. I also fixed the IMDb references, since one wasn't needed and the other could be more reliably sourced. I've got a better suggestion for the images — why not use the image here in the "controversy" section, since it's one of the parts of the film which is very controversial. --Haemo (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That certainly is one of the most controversial scenes in Homerun! Unfortunately, the image is of a very low quality and contains subtitles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the use of IMDB to source credits, this discussion may be of interest Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Credit Guidelines. I'm sorry if you felt I was being too particular in my review. I was not nearly as particular as I am with FACs. :P I feel GA shouldn't just be automatically given, but that reviewers should honor the article and its editor(s) by truly giving it a good thorough review. Some of my remarks were questions for clarity and to ensure information wasn't being left out. And yes, I've only recently started doing GA reviews, as I've generally aimed straight for FA/FL instead. I started doing some GA reviews for two reasons: One, I have my first article up for GA which I submitted as I know it will be awhile before I can take it to FA but that I do feel is ready for GA, so I felt I should pay it forward and hope that whoever reviews that article is also thorough so I can feel confident it earned it GA mark. And, two, because I am dismayed by the number of truly bad articles that have been casually passed through GA of late. As such, I felt I should do my part to help by being a thorough reviewer in the areas I normally work in. I was an active member in the film project before turning more towards anime and manga, so I felt I was familiar enough with the topic to be a decent adequate reviewer of this article.
I feel this is an excellent article and just wanted to clarify and have a few issues addressed before I felt I could personally say I felt it was GA quality. I was a little dismayed and disheartened by the reaction to what I felt was a fairly easy going review and my putting it on hold, particular the remarks left elsewhere. On hold isn't bad, to me, it just means "here are some relatively minor issues that I felt can be fixed relatively quickly." With those addressed, I fully intended to pass the article. Collectonian (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a stubby, but sourced, distro section to the article — maybe we could merge it with the "reception" or "production" parts? --Haemo (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Heck, it's better as part of the "Production and distribution" sections anyways. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
How did you find enough information to write a paragraph about distribution, when the hours I have spent on research turned up nothing? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I wondering, is the Cast section necessary? I've thought that Cast sections were most appropriate if there was a lot to say about various roles, or if there were a lot of important roles in the film (like in an ensemble film). The article's Plot section already mentions everyone, so the Cast section seems a little redundant. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Cast sections even if fairly small will be identified easily in the contents section rather than the more intricate way of finding cast/characters and actors in the plot or infobox sections. As to other points made, the IMDb articles generally appear to be accurate in most aspects except for the trivia sections which are iffy. Images are a bit of a conundrum – put them with the content text or directly in a gallery section? Normally, images that fit well with the body of the article seem to be the best way to go. As to referencing, I still find there are some inconsistencies in the notes/end notes section and the reliance only on electronic data can still be problematic. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
Well, tracking down sources for movies like Homerun is quite difficult, so online sources are very useful since they can be more readily sourced. Notice, however, the wide variety of newspaper cites here. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
WRT to the cast issue, I think it's acceptable as it stands — not the biggest, and could be trimmed, but I like the separation from the plot. --Haemo (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. I was more concerned with the balance of the content; the other sections are substantial, whereas the Cast section seemed awfully minimal. How about a different approach -- having a simple list instead, in which each character's role can be identified? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That could work, but I would be concerned with the overlap with the plot section. --Haemo (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there already an overlap with the Cast section existing at all? ;) I was suggesting nothing more than ten or fifteen words to describe each character. I guess to "flesh out" the Cast section a little more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, as mentioned above, referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce. (Note that 17 of the 32 references - just over half - are newspaper references.) Thus I was concerned that changing the Cast section to an annotated bulleted list would entail the introduction of original research. Please point out any "inconsistencies in the notes/end notes section" so they can be addressed. As for the images, perhaps their importance (as I outlined above) could be made more explicit in the article and in their fair-use rationales. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that a simple bulleted list has been preferable on film articles because there is no need to worry for coding, and detail can be added and copy-edited. I understand how you see that this seems to leave it open-ended for original research, but I think OR is a concern anywhere. Such OR could be easily reverted with explanations to the respective editors. It's a little flexibility at a small price of maintaining it, in my opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An annotated bulleted list would contain original research; a simple bulleted list would not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, and so I will do so. It seems the outstanding issues are that of the cast section, and the images. For the cast section, it probably isn't a huge deal either way, but I would change it to a bulleted list to keep consistent with other articles. A short description of the character could be cited back to the film, as with the plot. As for the images, I would probably keep the image with the award. I don't think the film screenshots are necessary, especially if there is an external link pointing to a page containing such screenshots. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think removing the cast section is better, upon reflection. MOS:FILM indicates that citing the actor in-line in the plot section is a valid alternative, and describing the characters over again seems redundant and un-necessary to me. Personally, I think including the image of the race is pretty important — it highlights a lot of important aspects and motifs in the film which are difficult to convey in text. For instance, the film has been adapted to a kampung setting, and a lot of the film deals with the poverty of the subjects. Also, running is a repeated metaphor that Neo uses — it both advances the plot, and ties into the political metaphor used throughout the film. It seems really important to me, at least, to convey some of these in images — personally, I was really struck by how the characters looked, and how that really highlighted their poverty, and how that related to Singapore. These are the sorts of things which don't come across well in writing, without doing a lot of editorializing. --Haemo (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, remember the fair-use rationales you wrote for the two screenshots in I Not Stupid. They mentioned that the scenes illustrated major themes in I Not Stupid, which were critical to analysis and reception of the movie. Perhaps you could write similar fair-use rationales for the two screenshots in Homerun (film)? The fact that the screenshots show recurring themes in the plot should be made more explicit, both in the article and in the fair-use rationales.
Should the Cast section be removed? I am rather "on the fence". The Cast section makes it easier for readers to find the information and for me to reference it. However, removing the redundant section would reduce the article size by 0.5 kB and the Film MOnSter says doing so is fine.
Note that I would like to retain consistency across all the GAs about Singaporean movies that I write. Therefore, if we make drastic decisions such as removing of the Cast section (or removing the screenshots), I will have to edit I Not Stupid accordingly, and will have to bear the decision in mind when writing I Not Stupid Too and other GAs about Singaporean films in future. This should not be a reason to oppose such drastic decisions if they benefit all the GAs on Singaporean movies that I write.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm personally fine with the cast section being kept, though I do think it should be a bulleted list as described by the MOS. It does not have to have any OR at all, as it should contain simply a short 1-2 sentence summary of things specifically stated in the film or other sources about the character. Collectonian (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, please do not be "dismayed and disheartened" by the reaction to your review. This review is a learning experience for both of us. Looks like both of us are on the right track and you will walk away as a better GA reviewer, while I will become a better GA writer. When the nominator and reviewer disagree, it never hurts to have input from others. Such input helps the learning process and helps check that both the nominator and reviewer have done a good job.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do with the Cast section?

Once Haemo edits the fair-use rationales so they mention the screenshots' significance as showing recurring themes in the plot, the only remaining issue will be the Cast section. Some have proposed converting it to a bulleted list or removing it altogether, while others think it should remain as a table. Since I wish to retain consistency across all the GAs on Singaporean movies that I write, I think we should have further discussion to determine consensus on this issue. Please !vote Table, Bulleted list or Remove below, explaining your !vote. Could the hold period be extended to allow for this discussion (and give Haemo time to edit the fair-use rationales)?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as its actively being worked on, I'm fine with keeping it on hold. :) One note, though, the screenshot significance also needs to be in the article itself, not just the FUR, otherwise no one knows its significance unless they look at the image itself. It needs to be clear in the article as well. Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The Plot section mentions that "the boys quarrel" and "try to resolve their differences, [but] eventually give up on reaching an agreement". In addition, the Political commentary section says that "The water dispute is portrayed by Kiat Kun (Singapore) quarrelling with Beng Soon (Malaysia) over the right to draw water from the kampung well". Perhaps the Plot section should inform readers that the boys quarrel regularly, instead of merely giving an example of such quarrels, while the Political satire section should include a statement that Kiat Kun's friends represent Singapore and Beng Soon's friends represent Malaysia in all their arguments, not just the incident at the well. As for the second screenshot, one can easily infer that it is significant because it shows the climax of the film, as described in the last paragraph. To make it clearer that the screenshot also shows a recurring theme in Homerun, namely running and the use of running as a metaphor, should the second paragraph of the Plot section also have a sentence stating that the siblings had to run to and from school every day? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the first picture doesn't look like boys arguing, it looks like two friends talking. I just checked the full and realized that's it. That image is way too small to meet the image requirements. Is a larger, more clearly viewable image available? The captions should indicate the image significance, with sources if necessary, rather than just saying what scene it is. For the second image, if running is the use a metaphor, give a source for that and update the second image's caption to say something along that line. Collectonian (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just change it to a bullet list for now; the other things can be done later, and aren't needed for this review. Also, I'll be finishing the rationales today. --Haemo (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would rather not make a hasty decision on something that will affect all my GAs about Singaporean movies. Of course, if Collectonian decides that the Cast section being a table should not be a reason to deny this article GA status, this point is moot and the discussion can close. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just seeing where things are on the images, particularly with relation to my last comment above? While I agreed to extended the GA hold, its been another week since then and it can't stay on hold permanently.Collectonian (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The one which you object to as "just two friends talking" is already specifically discussed in the criticism section as part of the significant political overtones the film has. The other one is specifically mentioned as a parallel to Singapore's predicament in which "both children are pushed to the limit". They're not only important to the plot, but are mentioned as parallels in reviews and criticism. I've fixed the captions to reflect your concerns. --Haemo (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the image size though? It is too small to meet image guidelines in that it is not very clear. Also, why not move the images to the section where they are specifically discussed? Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the image guidelines recommend that fair-use images should be small and of a low resolution to prevent inappropriate reuse (such as piracy). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that small. :P To meet the guidelines it should be 300 pixels on the shortest measurement (length or width). The image guidelines also say they must be large enough to be clearly identifiable. With the image so small, the facial expressions are lost, hence my saying it doesn't look like what the caption says. Is a larger one available? Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The second screenshot has a length of 300 pixels and thus meets the requirements. However, the first screenshot does not; its length is 158 pixels. Perhaps I could get a copy of the first screenshot by watching Homerun on Crunchyroll and ALT+PRINT SCREENing during that scene; that screenshot would definitely be large enough. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the second only barely meets. The shortest side should be 300, but its not as bad. If you are going to retake one though, it wouldn't hurt to retake both and resize so that the shortest sides, rather than the longest, are 300. Once the first one is replaced, though, let me know and I'll close the GA. Collectonian (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. Give me a couple of days. Life in a Singaporean junior college is insanely hectic! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What should replace the first screenshot? Take your pick from screenshot of an argument after a deal is reneged on or screenshot of an argument over water. I could not ALT+PRINT SCREEN an exact copy of the first screenshot because that scene had subtitles throughout the argument. By the way, do I simply upload the new screenshot under the same filename (my understanding of image policy is as little as your understanding of Singlish)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can just upload the new one under the same filename, since the filename isn't particularly unique. :P Just make sure to update the description, as needed. For which to use, I'm inclined to say the first as it matches the current caption more. Its a shame you don't have access to the DVD though. :( Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded the former screenshot under the same filename, then updated the caption, altering the size and position of the image in the process. Are we done? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll about Cast section

  • Simple bulleted list with no annotations (any and all annotations should be removed as original research). The syntax of a bulleted list is less complicated than that of a table and changing the table to a simple bulleted list will make the article comply with the Film MOnSter. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Simple Bulleted list, without the statement currently above the table, per the MoS. As a note, though, annotations are not always original research. You can provide a summary of their role in the film with the film itself as the source, so long as there is no interpretation added (i.e. if the film says X character is 12, then you can say Actor Y as Character X, a 12 year old boy, or you can expand by sourcing from reviews or other sources if they speak to something specific about a character. Collectonian (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Simpled bulleted list. Annotations are not OR if any reasonable person could draw the conclusion from the film (ie. Bob is fat, Dave is a kid, etc.) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Simple bulleted list - I strongly feel cast lists should not be presented in the form of a table, which in my opinion is unsightly and not very encyclopedic in nature. MovieMadness (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As I previously have mentioned in other discussions, I think a well-written plot synopsis should include character descriptions, thus rendering them unnecessary in cast lists. MovieMadness (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
True that there is redundancy, but is it not possible that some people may want to know the gist of a character without reading the Plot section? After all, the Plot section tells everything about the film, where the Cast section usually describes the role in a non-plot manner. (For example, we wouldn't say, "Bob is a 35-year-old soldier who is killed at the end of the film.") —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the average person who uses Wikipedia as a resource tends to read the entire article about the subject he's researching. MovieMadness (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Simple bulleted list is OK by me. I think a brief description of each character is acceptable -- just make the wording indisputable by avoiding flavor in writing. Like others have said, if it's unanimous that someone is a 12-year-old boy, then that can be mentioned. Just to reflect the type of role played. I don't think there should be a major concern with OR for this film article that won't be flooded with creative writers like some upcoming tentpole films' articles will be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be unanimous consensus for changing the table to a simple bulleted list, I have gone ahead and done so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)