Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive4

You may wish to read the article's first, second and third peer reviews.

When failing I Not Stupid's first GA nomination on 26 December 2006, ExplorerCDT raised concerns about choppy prose, lack of broad coverage and poorly-placed images. The article has considerably improved since then; a thorough expansion and copy-edit (with the help of Haemo) has hopefully addressed the concerns about choppy prose and lack of coverage (Homestarmy deemed the image concerns moot).

Therefore, I had planned to renominate the article on 8 July 2007. In a comedy of errors (described by Wisekwai as a "tragedy"), Homestarmy renominated the article (prematurely) on 22 June 2007, placing it in the "Television" section (I Not Stupid's a movie). Less than 24 hours later, NSR77 failed this nomination; however, most of his reasons for failing the article were criticised by Wisekwai, Bishonen and myself.

I have decided to postpone the GA nomination date to 15 July, so I can file a request with the League of Copyeditors, as well as this peer review. Any suggestions for improving the article would be most appreciated. Please note that I am aiming only for GA status, not FA, because external systemic bias makes it difficult to find reliable referenced information on Singaporean movies.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The image is being used in an informative way, for identification and critical commentary" is the "specific" justification for the fair-use rationale on each and every non-free image in the article. A better fair-use rationale would outline what that use actually entails, and specifically why that image is necessary in the article. If it were alright to just copy-and-paste a fair-use rationale across a ton of movie screenshots, then we wouldn't require a specific fair-use rationale at all. These need to be fixed in order to better align with our policies on fair use. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When uploading the screenshots, I provided the following fair-use rationale: "A movie screenshot, used on article of said movie, is fair-use. The screenshot is for informational purposes and does not harm the movie makers commercially." Haemo replaced the fair-use rationales I provided with the template. (Note that the image of the movie cover was not uploaded by me.) Is the use of a screenshot in the Political satire section allowed under fair-use? I'm not an expert on fair-use rationales; could you give me a guide to providing a good fair-use rationale? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is more than a little pedantic. It is readily apparent how it is being used from the context, and by simply reading the article, and the captions.  You're placing an unduly high level of burden here -- I mean, look at the rationale on these FA class articles.
 * Image:Calvinhobbes honk.gif
 * Image:Calvin & Hobbes - Calvin.png
 * Image:Oldmansea.jpg
 * Image:Oldmansea fuentes.jpg
 * Image:Mansteel1.png
 * Image:CaptainMarvel.jpg
 * Image:Marvel White Costume2.jpg
 * Many of these are worse, or differ in no substantive way from the rationales presented above. Fair use rationales are intended to explain how this qualifies as fair use.  Critical commentary is an accepted explanation for fair use.  It is exceptionally pedantic to request a detailed outline of that commentary, when the context is already clear on the article in question.  However, I've updated them none-the-less.  --Haemo 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, this reply seems a little sharp, and I just wanted to apologize. On reflection, I think you have a point, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably not a very compelling reply.  I think a short "significance" section is worthwhile, and have adopted it.  Thank you for your help.  --Haemo 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and that's not a template; it's just got DIV headers on it. --Haemo 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, thought it was a template. In my opinion, Haemo has provided excellent fair-use rationales; hopefully ESkog and the GA reviewer will agree. Any comments on the prose, references, style, organisation and other areas are most appreciated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One


 * The fair-use rationales on the images are specifically crafted for each image, even if they read the same. The most striking difference is on Screenshot 1, which says: "The image is significant since it illustrates one of the major social criticisms that the film levels, and relates it to the characters involved, putting it in context for the reader, and providing more meaningful critical commentary." This is different than the others. It's obvious that a lot of care has gone into crafting these rationales, and I find them sufficient. — WiseKwai 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally removed the caning image and expanded the lead to explain briefly what kiasu was. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I Not Stupid has achieved GA status, and I will not push for FA, could someone help me close and archive the peer review? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)