Talk:I Not Stupid

message: Suggestion: include the literal translation of the Chinese name which is "the children are not stupid".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.47.52 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of series

message: Found one article  with Neo's quote regarding the problem of Sg's education system. Neo probably has had many interviews regarding the INS film. What he said can be very useful material regarding the background of the movie and its message. Hopefully we can find more of these references. --Vsion 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Neo's quote

message: The article needs to give some background of the casts. Most readers would have no idea who Xiangyun is, describing her (and few others) as veterans (or something similar) is appropriate given their status in the local entertainment scene. It came from a source, i don't have it now, but it shouldn't be difficult to find. Again some background is necessary, to give that section a better structure and more depth, as compared to a list of unfamiliar names for most readers. Same for the Comedy Night comedians, also Hossan Leong is well-known in the theatrical scene. Their background and guest-starring roles should be noted. --Vsion 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the cast section in Casablanca? -ryand 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth did you find out that I was looking at that? This is kinda spooky. :D --Vsion 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. -ryand 12:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; besides the main cast, the table in the Cast section should also mention the supporting cast. I will add more information to the table, though I will have to work within the constraints of my reference. I removed the paragraph Vsion added, because it was slightly POV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: A Production section is essential to achieve "broad coverage", a GA criteria.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find referenced information on Singaporean movies.
I need suggestions for information we should include in the Production section. My list so far: music, writing, shooting, crew and budget.
Once we have finalised the list, it's time to research and find referenced information to add to the section!
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that references do not need to be strictly in English. Chinese references are perfectly acceptable if there are no english alternatives. --Vsion 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Chinese references are acceptable, but it is harder to find Chinese references through Google. I'm considering including Chinese references in Homerun (film), due to the lack of available English references about Megan Zheng's Golden Horse victory (the biggest notability claim). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production section 

message: The infobox is supposed to have an image of the VCD/DVD cover. However, :Image:I Not Stupid.jpg is a red link. Was the image deleted? If so, why? What can we do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-uploaded it. The deletion log is  here, which says it was deleted for lack of licensing information, which could mean any number of things: lack of source information, unknown copyright status or lack of a licensing tag. The image now has all that (not saying that it didn't before; I'm not sure why it was deleted), plus a fair-use rationale. It should not be a problem. — WiseKwai 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for resolving this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the image in the infobox? 

message: ===Why I failed article for GA status===
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 26, 2006, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections, only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie.
:2. Factually accurate?: well cited, though.
:3. Broad in coverage?: no, q.v. well written critique
:4. Neutral point of view?: yes, but bland on discussing issues that need to be explored
:5. Article stability? seemingly so.
:6. Images?: terribly placed, too many images per word count (refer to image guidelines), aesthetically unpleasant.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far. 
Just because your friends like 28 citations and say it's good doesn't mean it's GA quality yet. --ExplorerCDT 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 26, 2006, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: not the best it could be. 5 on a 0 (terribly written) to 10 (well written) scale. Too many two-sentence paragraphs, short sections, only a cursory or perfunctory examination of subject and its reception or effects on possible reforms Singapore's education system. Does not delve into depth concerning the extent of the satire and satirical devices, omits a few important themes of the movie.
:2. Factually accurate?: well cited, though.
:3. Broad in coverage?: no, q.v. well written critique
:4. Neutral point of view?: yes, but bland on discussing issues that need to be explored
:5. Article stability? seemingly so.
:6. Images?: terribly placed, too many images per word count (refer to image guidelines), aesthetically unpleasant.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far. 
Just because your friends like 28 citations and say it's good doesn't mean it's GA quality yet. --ExplorerCDT 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I failed article for GA status

message: I asked ExplorerCDT for clarification regarding the issues he brought up in the GAR above, and this was his response:
The images in I Not Stupid are all located in one section (minus the one in the infobox), under "Plot".  The four images cause stacking problems, jar left right left right, clutter the space it shares with the text, and just are aesthetically unpleasant.  There was a policy guideline that said you should use a proper ratio of words to picture, I can't remember the number but I think it was something like 250 or so.  I'll look and see if I can remember where that was when I have time tomorrow. But, in terms of aesthetics and balance, there are just too few words to justify four pictures in one section.  Now, what I'd suggest, seeing that other sections are without pictures, is to move some of the pictures to currently unpictured sections...say, one picture per section.  Also, the captions need work.  Think of the audience reading the article. Write the captions for someone who has never seen the movie and only has a minute to glance through the article (not really read it).  As if you were picking up a National Geographic magazine and only had time to read picture captions, but none of the articles. Throw together those and the rest of what I suggested and I'll have no problems approving a GA. Right now, it's sorely not ready. —ExplorerCDT 07:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on image issues

message: I have filed a GA review on I Not Stupid. This is not an attempt to overturn the failure of the nomination, but an attempt to post, and seek, further clarifications regarding the issues that caused the nomination to fail. Please feel free to comment at the GA review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: * Saw some discussion of image stacking. For future reference, see ‎Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links.
* --Ling.Nut 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image stacking? 

message: * might have thought it would be interesting to include why the movie was so-named. 
* comments on prose and proposed draft left here.
* i've got a ton of whitespace (due to current image placement) viewing the article in its present form on my 19". Chensiyuan 09:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current section detailing the plot is both convoluted and very poorly written. I suggest fixing that before even thinking about nominating for GA again. Manderiko 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manderiko, I am aware that the Plot section, which I wrote in September 2006, is poorly written. Back then, I wrote as I watched the movie. Since 2007, I have gotten into the habit of jotting down the main points/events while watching the movie, and writing the Plot section based on these points. I intend to rewrite the Plot section using this new method. What do you think? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts

message: On 20 February 2007, User:Jedd the Jedi renamed the "Sequels" section to "Sequels and Spinoffs" and added an unreferenced paragraph about a TV talk show named "I Not Stupid Forum". I have watched the talk show and can vouch for its existence, but could not find any reliable sources on it from a Google search. Could others help me find a reliable reference? If no reliable sources can be found, should the paragraph be removed (it may cause the article to fail the "factually accurate and verifiable" section of the GA criteria)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such things are probably not going to be contested; usually when they are raised it just means the article is in bad shape. Speaking from experience. Chensiyuan 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt I Not Stupid is in bad shape - in fact, if we weren't aiming for GA status, I don't think anyone would care that the paragraph is unreferenced. I was the first to be concerned about the unreferenced paragraph - it was also raised by Zuracech lordum in the article's second peer review. Does "probably not going to be contested" mean that I don't need to add a reference for it? Even if I don't, the paragraph still needs a rewrite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing sources will be good, but if you cannot find web sources, then its fine. You can rewrite it no problem, without sources. This article is okay, and people are unlikely to raise such issues unless this is on FAC. Terence 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, once you have exhausted your options, especially as I've mentioned on the review a subject that would be rather obscure considering the Geographical Location, then its probably safe to keep in considering the quality of the rest of the article. - Boochan 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is a 3-0 consensus that it is not neccesary to reference that paragraph, I will not delete it - instead, I will rewrite it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced paragraph (not added by me) 

message: *The Production section has already been added.
*Fair-use screenshots have been added.
*The Reception section has been sufficiently expanded.
*YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable.
*I can't access the search.ft reference.
I would update it myself, but the template formatting is too complex.
I propose the following GA to-do list, in order of priority:
*Rewrite the Plot section. (I will watch the VCD, write the plot in point form, and rewrite it based on the points).
*Expand and improve the Production section.
*Rewrite the third paragraph of the Sequels section (according to the section above, there is a 3-0 consensus that this does not need a reference; we can remove the paragraph if the GA reviewer disagrees).
*Address the image issues.
*The Political satire section may need expansion (I'm not sure if this is neccesary).
Hopefully I will be able to clear the "GA to-do list" item by item, and renominate the article within 2-3 weeks.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a comment Homestarmy posted on my talk page, I don't need to address any issues with images, so I struck that out. "Rewrite the third paragraph of the Sequels section" has been done - I struck that out as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone update the to-do list? 

message: Feel free to comment. — WiseKwai 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page still open 

message: Knowing that E@L would be away from Wikipedia this month due to real life issues, I sought the assistance of another copy-editor, Haemo. Thanks to him, the prose in the Production and Political satire sections has improved considerably in the past couple of weeks. However, during the most arduous task - rewriting the Plot section - we had several disagreements, mostly because he has not watched the movie and is not familiar with the plot. Hence, this section is for Wikipedians who have watched I Not Stupid to give feedback on the new Plot section, and to help Haemo and I settle any disagreements over the Plot section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been awhile since I've seen the film, but it seems like the major plot points are covered, and it reads much smoother overall. It's a big improvement. Personally, I wish you'd consider retaining the two screenshots that were dumped, and place them in other sections of the article. The swatting photo would fit well in the political satire section. But I know this is a sensitive topic for some reason, so I won't press it. Just a suggestion. It won't make or break the article. — WiseKwai 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Object, the kidnapping is quite a notable part of the movie. Maybe a sentence or two of the kidnapping should be fine. It took quite a good couple of minutes for that section. Good work on the revised plot of the article. Terence 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nine years late, but object: the kidnapping is in the movie to point out that artistic skills have their uses as well. Not covering it is a shame. Banedon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

text: That's what I think. I would lose Selena if I were you.  Bishonen | talk 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Plot section 

message: Since we want the Plot section to be concise, Haemo and I decided that the new Plot section should not contain a paragraph on the kidnapping. Does anyone object? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been awhile since I've seen the film, but it seems like the major plot points are covered, and it reads much smoother overall. It's a big improvement. Personally, I wish you'd consider retaining the two screenshots that were dumped, and place them in other sections of the article. The swatting photo would fit well in the political satire section. But I know this is a sensitive topic for some reason, so I won't press it. Just a suggestion. It won't make or break the article. — WiseKwai 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Object, the kidnapping is quite a notable part of the movie. Maybe a sentence or two of the kidnapping should be fine. It took quite a good couple of minutes for that section. Good work on the revised plot of the article. Terence 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nine years late, but object: the kidnapping is in the movie to point out that artistic skills have their uses as well. Not covering it is a shame. Banedon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the kidnapping important?

message: Haemo says that he has difficulty connecting a sentence about Selena with the rest of the Plot section. I think that she plays a major, though not essential, role in the movie. Where do you suggest a sentence/paragraph about Selena be placed? Or do you think the Plot section should not mention her? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I think. I would lose Selena if I were you.  Bishonen | talk 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Selena?

message: I originally intended to nominate I Not Stupid for GA status on 8 July. As Haemo is busy in real life, I have decided to postpone the nomination to 15 July. Doing so allows me to file a peer review and request for copy-editing before nominating it again. Please comment at the peer review. I hope I Not Stupid passes GA! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination postponed to 15 July 

message: Hi, I copyedited the plot section just a short while ago, so I've removed this tag.  If you object, feel free to discuss it here.  --Haemo 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: *Due to external systemic bias, finding referenced information on Singaporean topics is very difficult. Finding 34 references is already a commendable achievement. I don't think the Production section can be expanded further.
*There's a 3-0 consensus that the last paragraph in the Sequels section does not need to be referenced. If you intended to put the nomination on hold because this paragraph was unreferenced, please remove the paragraph instead. Doing so would shorten the article by 324 bytes (I recall there used to be a guideline that the optimal length for GAs is 15 kB).
*Factual questions and clarifications regarding the film and Singapore should be directed at me; if a few sentences need copy-editing, badger Haemo instead.
*I need to sleep now; I may add more points tomorrow.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for GA reviewer 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I think that you've addressed the concerns of the previously failed GA rather well.  The article is better for the copyedit and I understand that not all Singaporean film stars will have their own articles due to the systemic bias.  Perhaps you could work on that next?!  Good work, well done.  The Rambling Man 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't it listed at WP:GA? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed! So go celebrate! — WiseKwai 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rambling Man forgot to add I Not Stupid to the GA list when passing the nomination; Mike42 addded it while I was typing this post. However, he forgot to update the counts and "recently listed". For the celebrations, feel free to leave barnstars, balloons, chocolate or bakkwa at my talk page. As the tagline of I Not Stupid goes :"when was the last time someone praised you?" --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on I Not Stupid. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101204127/http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/comedy/inotstupid/inotstupid.html to http://www.kfccinema.com/reviews/comedy/inotstupid/inotstupid.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927013013/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_cast.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_cast.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104051910/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_prodnotes.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/ins/ins_prodnotes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061223130011/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/js/fs.asp?ref=%2Finotstupid2_160106.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/js/fs.asp?ref=%2Finotstupid2_160106.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927143615/http://www.gov.sg/nd/ND02.htm to http://www.gov.sg/nd/ND02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909081227/http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/ to http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To those in concern, I am happened to pass by an article I remember watching this, but I want to object that move about the revert over the grammar plot over the plot that is correctly updated and factual. The old plot however has lots of incorrect plots and its not that covering the film well, and I have to agree on the new plot, in under a condition to fix all the grammar mistakes. Moreover, that plot you revert had not violated the WP:MOSFILM guidelines, though it can be improved better. I not rest easy until you revert back the plot and retweak the article. Thank you.122.11.214.197 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note MOSFILMPLOT specifically says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words". The version of the plot that's not currently in the article is also riddled with grammatical issues, e.g. "Terry frequently embarrass himself for his actions and self-pride amd was reprimanded by his overprotective mother" -- this should clearly be "Terry frequently embarrasses himself with his actions and self-pride and is reprimanded by his overprotective mother. I think if you have issues with the current plot, there is some room for expansion (a word counter says it's currently 576 words), but not to the point of the version currently not in the article. Banedon (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to back up this article, but I have to disagree the revert. The plot for that new one is however correct and I understand that there got some grammar issues, so rather than reverting back to the original plot, a simple editing will be appropriate, and besides that the case that the new plot is actually correct and also needs improvement. So as a rule of thumb, PLEASE use the new plot and amend any grammar issues or fix anything if possible. 122.11.214.197 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "new" plot is littered with grammatical errors and really hard to copyedit. In fact the reason why I manually reverted is because I started copyediting it, realized it could not possibly have been this bad (since the article is a GA), and searched the history. Is there something that isn't in the current plot that should be there? Banedon (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot that would have been correct include, in order: Lee being the new teacher, the conflicts between Liu and Jerry Khoo, the Creative Director promotion, Kok Pin and Tiong Meng bully but no one is punished (it's not the former being scolded, according to the scene, and the part where Liu's mother was speaking to the principal), Selena say she want free will as freedom, Liu and John compete for the post, hospital scene, and also the ending. Also, the cast name in parenthesis is not necessary as it is the norm for many movie articles (I seen many of the articles already, this one is outdated) I already said, the new plot is correct, but I understand you have issues over the copyedit and grammar error, so Why note ask this WikiProject, that one, and this to make a discussion and try to rework on the new plot? That way, it will be fair, and it is a win-win situation (keeping the new plot before the revert, and while edited to fix copyediting) 122.11.214.200 (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You could perhaps propose the plot here and ask someone capable of grammar copyedits to sift through it and make it functional for a GA.  Otherwise I'd suggest you stop trying to replace the plot section with a bunch of badly formed sentences. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

text: (summoned from WT:SG) The proposed new plot (from ) does not meet MOS:FILMPLOT guidelines for overall length; it is 980+ words long which is well over the recommended upper limit of 700. I don't see how the proposed plot is much of an improvement even if it receives a thorough copyedit – there's a lot of excess detail (e.g. the name of the bakkwa company, overly long descriptions of subplots like the bullying incident and temple visit), and the current plot summarises most of the storyline much better than the new plot, especially the last two paragraphs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot issues