Talk:On the Job/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Review coming soon. Freikorp (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * I'd replace "hired gun" with something a little less colloquial. ✅
 * "by 2012, however, they reappraised the script" - specifying the year here raises the question of when the story was written and when it was originally appraised. ✅ I can only add the original appraisal time frame as I'm unsuccessful at pinpointing as to when the screenwriting took place.
 * I'd replace "rave reactions" also. ✅
 * Specify a time frame regarding the American remake and miniseries. ✅
 * Plot
 * Thelma needs more introduction - who is she other than their boss? Is she in prison as well? Is she a gang-leader? Comment: The movie does not provide ample details on this character.
 * I'd merge the third and fourth paragraphs. ✅
 * Production
 * This is important. You need to make it very clear in the prose that the whole 'true story' angle is only based on what one persons claims he did. The story is extremely dubious in my opinion. Rather than introducing it as an accepted fact, you should reword it to clarify this crew member stated he performed contract kills from inside prison. This should be clarified in the lead as well. ✅
 * "The crew member was a service driver who occasionally worked as a hired gun," - this is worded confusingly. Was he a service driver and a hit-man while in prison, or was he a hit-man in prison and a service driver for the film crew? ✅
 * The second half of the first paragraph in this section needs inline citations. ✅
 * "amounted to ₱47 million" - can we get a translation here in brackets? Pick a more popular currency and specify what that amount equates to. ✅ sort of. Comment: I'm using Template:To USD for this one but it won't let me add a comma for a condensed value. Would that suffice, 'cause I doubt it will...
 * I'd change "LRT" to "Light Rail". ✅
 * I'd replace "a hectic process" as it reads too unprofessionally. ✅
 * It's a shame the Red EPIC camera doesn't have a Wikipedia article that can be linked to (or does it?). Can you explain more to the reader how a camera can "light an entire set". I'm confused. Comment: I presume it talks about the quality. it's difficult going to technicalities about this camera but here's how the Esquire source (ref. 6) described it: Employing the magic of a Red Epic camera, which is able to work exceedingly well with available light, the director was able to light an entire set at once, without having to bother adjusting degrees of brightness when a scene requires moving to another part of a location.
 * No worries. If that's the best you can do with the source that's fine. Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Release
 * "On the Job was screened and had its world premiere" - Cut "was screened and"; it's redundant. ✅
 * Future
 * Firstly I think 'Future' is a bad section header. How about 'Adaptations'? ✅
 * "A US adaptation of the film has been confirmed" - When? When was it confirmed? ✅
 * "The remake will be produced" - When is it scheduled to be produced? Comment: Does not say when.
 * "it was announced that a six-part sequel miniseries was to be created" - Is there any indication where this will happen? Comment: Does not say either.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * One instance where this is needed as indicated above.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * As indicated by talk page and history.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * How can you justify having the film festival poster AND the infobox poster? Fair use guidelines state images should be included if their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". How does this image help the reader understand the topic in a way the infobox image can't? Personally I don't think removing it would be detrimental to understanding the subject either. ✅ Ditto. :)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold. Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once the above issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very pleased with improvements. Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)