Wikipedia

Talk:Singapore Dreaming

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Former good articleSingapore Dreaming was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 14, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 13, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 9, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Singapore Dreaming bagged Singapore its first IFFPA-recognised award at an international feature film festival?
Current status: Delisted good article


Request for photographs from film-makers

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Major expansion

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

Great job so far! It's definately going to be a FA soon! Cbrown1023 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Re-review for GA status

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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.
  • 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Dreaming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

  • The plot summary is rather long and rambling; it should be tightened up to improve flow and comprehensibility.
  • Paragraphs by definition have at least three sentences. There are many groupings in this article that do not meet that threshold, and either need to be cut, merged elsewhere, or fleshed out.
  • There's no info on critical reception in the body, even though the lead summaries some. This is a major gap in coverage.
  • Some parts of the article need to be updated, as they discuss events to happen that already have.
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
    • [1], [2], [3]
    • Also, it appears all the singapore dreaming refs are dead (code error), which means they will have to be archived or replaced entirely.
  • Last section of "Award and nominations" improperly sourced.

I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements. Keep me appraised of developments in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As no progress has been made, I am delisting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Dreaming/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply


I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I will probably make some minimal changes during the course of the review -- punctuation, spelling, typos, grammar, minor wording, etc. I hope that's OK. If any of these changes are problematic for you, feel free to revert or revise. With luck, I should be finished within 7 days. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

After reading the article and considering some of the comments made when the article was reassessed 5 years ago, it seems that two of the major concerns expressed in the reassessment have not been addressed adequately. I'm inclined to fail the article, but will put it on hold for a week in case the nominator or other editors want to address the problems. It's an interesting article, broad in coverage; but it's not ready for GA status based on a couple of major issues, as indicated below. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article and are working towards improving the quality of the wikipedia film project.--Jburlinson (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've received no feedback so I'm going to fail the article for now. I hope editors will consider some of the concerns raised here and in previous assessments and that we can work together to resolve these issues. Once again, thanks to all who are working to improve the quality of wp articles on film.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Major issues with the prose identified in previous GA reviews have been corrected for the most part. There are still a few typos/punctuation errors that need correcting and minor wording changes might be helpful here and there, but, on the whole, the article is pretty much OK.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Lead states that there were positive reviews from local critics, yet none are mentioned in the article itself and the section on "critical reception" is blank.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • The article is heavily dependent on blogs closely associated with its subject. Please see WP:QUESTIONABLE for a discussion of issues. In addition, the single most often cited source is a podcast for the mrbrown show and the link is to a password protected site. I found the podcast in question elsewhere and it consists of an interview with the filmmakers, which further raises the issue of questionable sources. These type of sources can be helpful when used in moderation, but there can be problems of NPOV when they become the primary sources for the article.
.
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • The section on "critical reception" is totally blank. This issue was also identified in the 2009 reassessment of the article and was considered a major gap in coverage.
  • A section on "home media" would be helpful.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • When so many sources are associated with the creators of the film, NPOV comes into question.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  fail. . I'll keep the review open pending response & discussion about the points raised above.

I'm putting the article on hold for a week to give editors a chance to address some of the concerns expressed above and in the 2009 reassessment. Please let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss further.

Having received no feedback in the past week, I've failed the article for now. I'm open to discussion. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your review. Based on your comments, I have decided to withdraw the nomination, with apologies. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Singapore Dreaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Dreaming&oldid=1217079718"