The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 [1].
This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Passed
|
---|
This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. Part 1
I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Part 2
I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Twitch Film, now known as Screen Anarchy, is definitely a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Part 3:
And with that, this nearly 12-hour source review is complete. I'm satisfied every source is of high enough quality and reliable to meet the featured article criteria. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 ( talk) 16:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Having passed the article at GAN and after reading this again now I believe it meets all requirements for FAC. I've found a few optional nitpicks which I will mention below.
That's all from me. Well done. Freikorp ( talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I also made a few minor changes for better grammar. Hope you don't mind. Besides those minor nitpicks, the article is pretty well-written and informative on the film. Just out of curiousity, are the FAMAS Awards like the Filipino version of the Oscars? PanagiotisZois ( talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a few more things:
@ FAC coordinators: I believe the article has received substantial amount of comments. Can I get a status report on the nomination? SLIGHTLY mad 13:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: I don't think we're quite there yet, and I'd like the prose to have another going over. I spotted a few things in the lead, so another pair of eyes would be a big help. For example, there is "who are temporarily freed from incarceration in a corrupt justice system to carry out political executions" (it would make more sense to swap this around to "who are temporarily freed from incarceration to carry out political executions in a corrupt justice system"), "Matti conceived of On the Job from a Viva Films crew member..."(how do you conceive from a crew member), "In 2010, Star Cinema initially declined to produce the film due to its violence and themes" (They refused to make it because of its themes? What themes? We need to be specific), "they reappraised the script and agreed to co-produce alongside Matti's production company, Reality Entertainment" (I think we are missing something, like "it", after co-produce and we should avoid "produce ... production" in the same sentence), "took place in various parts of Manila" (redundancy: "took place in various parts of Manila") and "where it received much praise and a standing ovation" (we don't need "much"). These are fairly minor, and might be the only issues in the whole article, but I'd still like another check. These are examples that I found from a quick check.
Sarastro1 (
talk) 19:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have been asked to copyedit this - some questions below:
On starting I did feel this needed some editing to improve flow and remove redundancies. I think I got most of them and it seems to read okay now. I find if there is a lot to fix I easily miss more stuff. Not sure, will have another look later. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: an editor was able to look at the prose and sort glaring redundancies out as well as improve textual flow. Will this be enough? SLIGHTLY mad 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
his father was not corrupt but in factComma.
he realizes that he has no one to leave prison forJust seems like an odd construction. Maybe, "no reason to leave prison".
he can remain in prisonMaybe "remain incarcerated"? It's more wordy but it avoid repetition.
mourned by many, including Nicky, and Acosta is dischargedThis... is really ambiguous comma usage, and you have to read past "Acosta" to really "get" that "Acosta" is part of the "discharged" and not part of the "mourning".
gained the ideaThis... is this a common usage in a variety non-US English? We would say "got the idea" and even that is probably too colloquial for WP.
potential investors to finance the project- Seems simpler to just say "investors for financing"
large a risk for overseasOverseas what? Markets? Audiences?
largest film outfit"Outfit" seems colloquial. What specifically and literally are they that "outfit" is filling in for?
as its content was too violent- "Content" seems redundant. I don't believe there is another way it could be violent other than in its content.
Matti had offeredIs the perfect here supposed to imply that at the time it was offered to Star that it had already been offered to these other two? Or is this just another step in the process? If so it should just be in past tense, because there is no particular references point in time that's necessary to "point from".
co-founder of Reality Entertainment, claimed thatWP:CLAIM? Are we intentionally casting doubt on these "claims"?
a Bushido Blade samuraiDon't use WLs in direct quotes.
This is a Manila movie...This is nearly a 50 word quote, and could probably be a block quote.
Filming was strenuous across over 70 locationsIf this is a correct usage of "strenuous" then it's not one I've ever heard. This are or are not subjectively "strenuous", they're not "strenuous over". Seems like you might be going for "stretched".
Erwin Romulo,[12] the editor-in-chiefConjunction?
some of his money home- I don't understand the significance of this. Is he paying remittances to his family? Is he hoarding cash in a mattress somewhere?
killing anyone else involved- First time I read this I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure. Is this anyone else involved in the gun-for-hire business, or anyone else in involved in the Senate campaign?
political presentation- Does this mean a campaign rally? Because "presentation" makes it seem like a conference room with a power point.
for his part- His part in...?
he visits Lulette, who is with her lover, Boy- I just really don't know what this means. Is the person's name Lulette or Boy?
Manrique and Pacheco's security detail- He he attacking Manrique and the security detail that belongs to Pacheco? Or is he attacking them both, and the security detail that belongs to both Manrique and Pacheco?
$350,000 (₱12 million)- This needs a similar explanation as before.
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 [1].
This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
|
Passed
|
---|
This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. Part 1
I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Part 2
I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Twitch Film, now known as Screen Anarchy, is definitely a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Part 3:
And with that, this nearly 12-hour source review is complete. I'm satisfied every source is of high enough quality and reliable to meet the featured article criteria. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 ( talk) 16:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) |
Having passed the article at GAN and after reading this again now I believe it meets all requirements for FAC. I've found a few optional nitpicks which I will mention below.
That's all from me. Well done. Freikorp ( talk) 10:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I also made a few minor changes for better grammar. Hope you don't mind. Besides those minor nitpicks, the article is pretty well-written and informative on the film. Just out of curiousity, are the FAMAS Awards like the Filipino version of the Oscars? PanagiotisZois ( talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a few more things:
@ FAC coordinators: I believe the article has received substantial amount of comments. Can I get a status report on the nomination? SLIGHTLY mad 13:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: I don't think we're quite there yet, and I'd like the prose to have another going over. I spotted a few things in the lead, so another pair of eyes would be a big help. For example, there is "who are temporarily freed from incarceration in a corrupt justice system to carry out political executions" (it would make more sense to swap this around to "who are temporarily freed from incarceration to carry out political executions in a corrupt justice system"), "Matti conceived of On the Job from a Viva Films crew member..."(how do you conceive from a crew member), "In 2010, Star Cinema initially declined to produce the film due to its violence and themes" (They refused to make it because of its themes? What themes? We need to be specific), "they reappraised the script and agreed to co-produce alongside Matti's production company, Reality Entertainment" (I think we are missing something, like "it", after co-produce and we should avoid "produce ... production" in the same sentence), "took place in various parts of Manila" (redundancy: "took place in various parts of Manila") and "where it received much praise and a standing ovation" (we don't need "much"). These are fairly minor, and might be the only issues in the whole article, but I'd still like another check. These are examples that I found from a quick check.
Sarastro1 (
talk) 19:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have been asked to copyedit this - some questions below:
On starting I did feel this needed some editing to improve flow and remove redundancies. I think I got most of them and it seems to read okay now. I find if there is a lot to fix I easily miss more stuff. Not sure, will have another look later. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: an editor was able to look at the prose and sort glaring redundancies out as well as improve textual flow. Will this be enough? SLIGHTLY mad 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
his father was not corrupt but in factComma.
he realizes that he has no one to leave prison forJust seems like an odd construction. Maybe, "no reason to leave prison".
he can remain in prisonMaybe "remain incarcerated"? It's more wordy but it avoid repetition.
mourned by many, including Nicky, and Acosta is dischargedThis... is really ambiguous comma usage, and you have to read past "Acosta" to really "get" that "Acosta" is part of the "discharged" and not part of the "mourning".
gained the ideaThis... is this a common usage in a variety non-US English? We would say "got the idea" and even that is probably too colloquial for WP.
potential investors to finance the project- Seems simpler to just say "investors for financing"
large a risk for overseasOverseas what? Markets? Audiences?
largest film outfit"Outfit" seems colloquial. What specifically and literally are they that "outfit" is filling in for?
as its content was too violent- "Content" seems redundant. I don't believe there is another way it could be violent other than in its content.
Matti had offeredIs the perfect here supposed to imply that at the time it was offered to Star that it had already been offered to these other two? Or is this just another step in the process? If so it should just be in past tense, because there is no particular references point in time that's necessary to "point from".
co-founder of Reality Entertainment, claimed thatWP:CLAIM? Are we intentionally casting doubt on these "claims"?
a Bushido Blade samuraiDon't use WLs in direct quotes.
This is a Manila movie...This is nearly a 50 word quote, and could probably be a block quote.
Filming was strenuous across over 70 locationsIf this is a correct usage of "strenuous" then it's not one I've ever heard. This are or are not subjectively "strenuous", they're not "strenuous over". Seems like you might be going for "stretched".
Erwin Romulo,[12] the editor-in-chiefConjunction?
some of his money home- I don't understand the significance of this. Is he paying remittances to his family? Is he hoarding cash in a mattress somewhere?
killing anyone else involved- First time I read this I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure. Is this anyone else involved in the gun-for-hire business, or anyone else in involved in the Senate campaign?
political presentation- Does this mean a campaign rally? Because "presentation" makes it seem like a conference room with a power point.
for his part- His part in...?
he visits Lulette, who is with her lover, Boy- I just really don't know what this means. Is the person's name Lulette or Boy?
Manrique and Pacheco's security detail- He he attacking Manrique and the security detail that belongs to Pacheco? Or is he attacking them both, and the security detail that belongs to both Manrique and Pacheco?
$350,000 (₱12 million)- This needs a similar explanation as before.