Talk:Ah Boys to Men

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Local critics lacks the sense and maturity to be a credible film critic[edit]

Typical of local critics, who just criticise for the sake of criticising, or as many would characterise as a Singaporean trait of, complaining and whining, simply can't wait to regurgitate their limited critical responses. While, expressing their textbook style opnions and criticisms, many of them fail to contextualise the objective of the film and the audience it was targeted at. Shawne Wong writing for F Movie Mag, labelled the film a "misfire in practically every way", is a perfect example of textbook criticism, without providing any hint of a basis for his opinion. Did he not think that the many aspects of the film that depicted BMT training scenarios and the behaviours and reactions from the recruits, reflected any realism at all? I for one, and the thousands of other male citizens, who had been through BMT, would, I believe, disagree with Shawne. Hee En Ming of Fridae who dubbed the first film as "possibly the worst boot camp comedy ever", must have based his comparisons to the storytelling standards of overly dramatised hollywood films, again, comparing apples with oranges.

In my opinion, I think, both part one and two of the films were a really great effort put in by the film makers, and it was well worth my time and money spent to enjoy their products. Watching the film brought back memories of the my time spent in the army, strengthen my patriotism and made me feel more Singaporean. Does it rate at the level of films like Full Metal Jacket, An Officer and a Gentlemen? Perhaps not. Sure, the acting has room for improvement, the cgi effects can be sharpened further, and many other aspects of film making can surely be improved further, but overall, the story had been told in a way that was remarkably enjoyable, relatable, and touched the hearts and mind of many locals, and leaves many audience feeling light hearted and more cheerful at the end of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.59.13 (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but they are still, after all, critical receptions that should be included. Your statement, while well evidenced by examples, does not belong here. I suggest you voice out somewhere in a forum. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ah Boys to Men/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 06:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • As it should "stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (MOS:INTRO) the lead should have no sources on it (WP:LEADCITE)
Done Citations removed and one sentence moved to the Themes section. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing In the process of merging Ah Boys to Men 2 into this article. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you split from "In conjunction with..." onward into a new paragraph; it seems to me the first would summarize the infobox and plot, and the second summarize the production section
Not done as I moved the sentence out of the lead section. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The "highest-grossing Singaporean film of all time" statement refers to films made in Singapore by Singaporeans. The article that you linked to above includes American blockbusters that earned more than Ah Boys to Men at the Singapore box office. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Boys to Men 2 is said to have grossed $6,366,469; it's more than S$6,300,000? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification What is wrong with giving a reasonable approximation? Most sources do so. The few that give such a precise number usually disagree on the exact figure. --Hildanknight (talk)
No, there's no problem. You misunderstood me (or I misunderstood you, I dunno). Hm... I asked because I thought Ah Boys to Men 2 exceeded Ah Boys to Men gross. Are ABM and ABM2 considered the same film? Or they grossed the same amount of box office? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed a lot of italics all over the article, starting with Ah Boys to Men, Ah Boys to Frogmen
Clarification The GA criteria only require adherence to five style guidelines. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, but at least you should try to be consistent: Ah Boys to Men is italicized in the first sentence, but not in the second paragraph... and it's not that difficult Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The infobox refers to the first part. The second part earned over S$7 million. Merging is in progress. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • The link to esplanade is probably not the right one
Done The link should be to Esplanade, Singapore. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Sia-lan being a reference to a crude Hokkien slang term meaning extreme disgrace" is not explict in the film it's WP:OR; even if it's I don't think it's necessary (you can prove I'm wrong, though)
Done The subtitles mention it, but I realised that leaving it out would be better. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a two weeks' worth of training" > "After two weeks of training" (?)
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Determined to win her back" > "Determined to recover her love" (?)
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • Sometimes you use ":", sometimes you just use "-"; be consistent or (IMO) you should just use regular punctuation
Done --Hildanknight (talk)
  • It's on you to decide if all actors listed fit the WP:FILMCAST criteria, but apparently there's too much people
Done --Hildanknight (talk)
Themes
  • conscription doesn't need to be capitalized
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relatives" wouldn't be a better word instead of "kins"?
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pokes fun" > "ridicules" (?)
References
  • Film Business Asia isn't italicized sometimes (it happens with other sources), and it's not linked on the first time it appears on "References"; conversely it's linked twice in prose what is against WP:OVERLINK (check for other overlinks too)
  • The Straits Times is linked at source #5 instead of #3; all words should be linked when it first appears
  • Be aware of WP:ALLCAPS (e.g. #32, #61)
  • Doesn't stylize source names (e.g. xinmsn, TODAY)
  • Ref #95 is missing work/publisher
  • Check the sources' state

I'll read through "Production", "Release", "Marketing" and "Reception" as soon as can to finish the review. However, I can already say two "Home media" sections seems superfluous to me. And, as "Release" and "Marketing" are very short sections you may consider merge them into one as they are related. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can do the reader avoid to click on "MINDEF" if you use its complete meaning on its first occurrence
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a budget of S$3 million, Ah Boys to Men is Singapore's most expensive film" Is it still true?
Clarification Yes. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crew" seems not to fit MOS:FILM
  • "The 'unpredictable' weather was a problem the crew encountered while filming at Tekong. 35 days were spent filming there" You may try a semicolon here
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you could split "Filming" into two paragraphs
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may decide if you want to title the last section "Music" or "Theme song"; a "subsubheader" is not needed
Done Preferred "Music". --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Discussions with film distributors in Hong Kong[69] and mainland China[70] are ongoing." Outdated?
  • "The cast and crew of Ah Boys to Men will be promoting and selling" Again.
Reception
  • It's fine except for the unnecessary subheader "Domestic"
Done --Hildanknight (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all my concerns exposed, now you have the standard seven days; I'll put it on hold. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildanknight: Hey, are you still working here? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing it per this commentary. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

Should I consider spliting the article into two separate pages, just as how they did with The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Typhoon966 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It seems awkward to have two infoboxes and often two subsections for each film. You could probably keep most of the "Production" section in the first film's article and refer back to it on the second film's article. Anything production-related that is unique to the second film could be detailed in that article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Anyway, I've done splitting the articles. To anyone else reading this, please feel free to add any new content to new page if missed anything. Typhoon966 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ah Boys to Men. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Ah Boys to Men. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ah_Boys_to_Men&oldid=1204605495"