Talk:Money for Nothing (1993 film)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by FrankRizzo2006 in topic GA Review

Fair use rationale for Image:Money for nothing.jpg edit

 

Image:Money for nothing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Money for nothing.jpg edit

 

Image:Money for nothing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Money for Nothing (1993 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LM150 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, happy to review this! Most of the article is in decent shape. But here's my initial comments:

  • Your plot is a bit too detailed.. please keep it under 700 words as per manual of style (currently it's 771)
  Done now 690 words Chompy Ace 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove the actors names from the plot - these are already in the cast section
  Done Chompy Ace 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "A Blu-ray Disc version was.." - remove the word "disc"
  Done Chompy Ace 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "a total of $1.2 million in $100 bills" - not really necessary to write "a total of"
  Done Chompy Ace 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, my only other issue is this sentence:

  • "Interesting in adapting Joey Coyle's story to film originated in December 1983, when a New York-based production company known as The Film Writers Company expressed interest in producing a film detailing his discovery of the money." - I think the first word is meant to be "interest" but you've used that word twice in the same sentence. I would rephrase it, eg. "The film adaptation of Joey Coyle's story originated in December 1983.."
  Done FrankRizzo (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Overall it's a neat article, and sourcing is fine. I know there isn't much to be written about this largely-forgotten film! Happy to promote shortly, thanks LM150 12:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply