Talk:Singapore Dreaming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Singapore Dreaming 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.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 9, 2006.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Singapore Dreaming is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is also under the scope of WikiProject Singaporean Arts and Entertainment.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Goh wz (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Request for photographs from film-makers

I sent the following e-mail message to the film-makers in hope of getting them to release the photographs of some film-related images partially:

Dear Sir/Madam:
Request for Partial Copyright Release of Film-Related Photographs
I am an editor of the English Wikipedia, a freely licensed encyclopedia that contains 1.5 million articles on a wide variety of topics. I watched Singapore Dreaming in the seventh week of its theatrical release and enjoyed the film. I write to enquire if the film-makers would be able to partially release the copyright of some film-related photographs to facilitate the editing of an article for Singapore Dreaming.
I am currently preparing a Wikipedia article for Singapore Dreaming, and we require pictures to illustrate the textual content. The common practise on Wikipedia when preparing movie articles is to use very selected copyrighted images using fair use as rationale. This, however, restricts the choice of editors in the amount of media that can be incorporated into an article, and consequently, to a certain extent, the article's quality. Moreover, the resolution of the images tend to be quite low. (Other restrictions of fair-use images exist.)
Thus, we at Wikipedia would greatly appreciate if the film-makers would be able to partially release the copyright of some film-related photographs for our use. Due to certain policies on Wikipedia, this entails releasing the said photographs (i) under the GNU Free Documentation License, (ii) under the Creative Commons Attribution license, (iii) under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license, or (iv) into the public domain. (A comic by the Creative Commons elucidates matters regarding copyright release.) Usage of photographs (i) released for use on Wikipedia (as opposed to everywhere else) and (ii) released only for non-commercial or educational purposes without a fair use rationale is prohibited by the latest policies.
I understand that Singapore Dreaming is an independent film production that is produced and marketed with a low budget. Partially releasing the copyright of some film-related photographs would enable Wikipedia editors to (i) select from a wider pool of images (not just those that are absolutely crucial to the article but those which would enhance it as well), (ii) include more media (according to current policy, there can only be one fair-use movie screenshot per article, for example), and (iii) upload higher-resolution images. All these would be a step in improving the article and increasing its chances of being a Featured Article. A featured article may be featured in the main page for our international audience to read. I am confident that if Singapore Dreaming is featured in the main page, it would increase awareness of your film and help with the sales of the recently released DVD and VCD.
The more photographs, copyright of which the film-makers agree to release partially, the merrier. Specifically, I supplicate you to release the copyrights of the following pictures partially:
We would be comfortable with using the above images if the article is to become a featured article. The number of images listed is comparable to that in V in Vendetta (film) (sic) (six). V in Vendetta was featured on the main page on 5 November 2006.
I have to repeat that this is not just a request to permit Wikipedia to use the photographs; it is more than that. This is a request to either apply one of three free licenses (GFDL, CC by, CC by-sa) to the photographs or release the photographs into the public domain (that is, claim no copyright to it). Thus, other users who visit Wikipedia would be able to put the photographs onto their own sites legally. Wikipedia policies necessitate this ability with regards to its non-fair-use pictures.
The film-makers have spared no effort in advertising this film through word-of-mouth and other low-budget means. Creating an article on Wikipedia and, even better, pushing it to featured article status and featuring it on the main page is another way to promote the film. In all fairness, this can be done even without a partial copyright release; however, by enabling more images to be included, high-resolution ones at that, and from a larger pool of images, a partial copyright release would make it a lot easier for us to push the article to featured article status. We sincerely implore the film-makers to assist us on this.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Goh Wei Zhong (User:Goh wz)

Meanwhile, we have to make do with fair-use images for this article. I'm working on the article now. —Goh wz 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major expansion

I already have research material on WordPad for the following sections:

  • Development
  • Production
  • Cast
  • Publicity and release
  • Awards and nominations
  • Soundtrack
  • Box office rankings
  • Critical reaction
  • DVD release

Please allow me a few days to write my findings out. Thanks. —Goh wz 07:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job so far! It's definately going to be a FA soon! Cbrown1023 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed too. If you need help in some way or other, do sound us out. ;)--Huaiwei 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

More specifically, the grammar in the Plot summary and Production sections in particular is very poor - the tenses are all over the place and make for difficult reading. Thus the GA is on-hold until a copyeditor can provide a solution to this problem. The Rambling Man 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article, The Rambling Man. Unfortunately, I am not a native English speaker (neither is Goh wz). I have filed a request with the League of Copyeditors, and will try to rope in Haemo, who helped me copy-edit I Not Stupid. However, if the article is copy-edited after the hold period has elapsed (it would have failed by then), should I take it back to GAC, or file a GA/R? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what'll happen is that I'll fail the GA within seven days if the concerns aren't addressed. You'll just need to renominate it later. No big deal, it really doesn't make much difference either way, just that the "on-hold" status is only applicable for seven days. Good luck finding a decent copyeditor! The Rambling Man 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Haemo replied that he will be away until Friday, but will copy-edit the article once he returns. If he starts (but does not finish) copy-editing before the hold period has elapsed, could you give him another week? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just copyedited the plot summary, but multiple clarifications are required, as marked, for editors who watched the movie to fill. - SpLoT // 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to wait until you're ready. Let me know on my talk page when you'd like to me to pop by again. All the best The Rambling Man 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thanks for copyediting the article to prepare it for its becoming a GA. I've to apologise for my bad English, especially my past participles, and bad tenses when it comes to synopsis-writing.
In any case, I've looked at the points of clarification requested and refined the prose accordingly. For your information, temp is a dictionary word meaning temporary worker, but I've changed temp to temporary worker in the film synopsis anyway. —Goh wz 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Haemo has started copy-editing, and Goh wz has provided the necessary clarifications. Does the article meet criterion 1a now? If not, keep checking back as Haemo continues copy-editing, and pass it once "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note, this has been on hold for over a week...so you should wrap this up ASAP. Giggy UCP 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just as a counter-note, I have allowed this on-hold to persist for such a period to enable the copyedit. :P The Rambling Man 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-review for GA status

Okay, good work with the copyedit and prose, I have just a couple of further comments and then I think we're there...

  • The references in the infobox are a bit over the top - ref [1] is used too many times. Refs [3], [4] & [5] don't comply with WP:CITE for placement.
  • "...president of the republic..." - be specific, just say the president of Singapore.
  • Entire plot summary has no citation.
  • Can you wikilink Lido? I don't know where it is.
    • Is the Lido in Italy the one you really want? The Rambling Man 11:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ref [22] needs to be moved per WP:CITE.
  • "be in competition ", "receive an award " - why italics?
  • Have all the references been checked? Their last access dates all appear to be 1 December 2006.

Having said that, the prose is much improved, so just attend these last couple of things and I'll gladly pass the article. The Rambling Man 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback! In accordance with your suggestions, I have changed "president of the republic" to "president of Singapore" (should "president" be capitalised?), wikilinked "Lido" (a Singaporean cinema built by Shaw Organization) and removed the italics (which Goh wz presumably added for emphasis).
According to members of WikiProject Films, Plot sections do not need references, as the movie itself is the assumed reference point (incidentally, the Plot section of I Not Stupid, which you passed, does not have any references). Where should reference 22 be moved to? I'm not sure what's wrong with the references in the infobox. Tomorrow, I will check all reference links (there shouldn't be a problem with non-Web references). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the plot references - the single reference which was more of a note threw me off course I think. Still, not a problem, that's dealt with by not dealing with it! As for President of Singapore, I don't have a preference either way, it depends on how he is usually formally referred to - most likely it would be capitalised. Ref 22 should go behind punctuation if at all possible, in this case it'd be reasonable to place a comma after the 2006, and move the ref to the right-hand side of it. References 3, 4 & 5 in the infobox shouldn't be placed with a space between them and the text (because no punctuation available here). Ref 1 just looks overused and is unnecessary in the infobox, just as you pointed out references aren't needed in the plot. But I'm not overly fussed by that. Let me know on my talk page when you're ready to go. The Rambling Man 12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I fixed all the references; point out if I missed any. JLWS is going to verify all of them and update their dates after he's finished class today. I also implemented a novel solution for the footnotes, which looks very nice in my opinion. --Haemo 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have checked all the Web-based references. The links to references 28-30 (all from Singaporean satirical website TalkingCock.com) are currently not working. TalkingCock's homepage indicates that the site will be down until 13 August, due to server issues and new projects the webmasters are working on. As all the other reference links are working, and the downtime will only last two weeks, I don't see why we should remove references 28-30, or keep this article on hold any longer. Do you agree, The Rambling Man? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see a big problem with that, as long as you check the links are back up and running in a couple of weeks time... I'll pass the GA now. Good work to all editors concerned... The Rambling Man 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TalkingCock is back up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)