Talk:Balota (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Balota (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Box Office
@Loibird90, as the last person who made a decent edit in this page, I would like to ask for your help in clarifying what the real box office tally was, given that multiple instances of vandalism had been done regarding that matter during your absence in this article. Borgenland (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- IP accounts, probably fans of this articles subject, have been making questionable changes regarding the films box office. Balota has grossed 35 million, which is a figure reported by Pep.ph. There are currently no other reliable source that states the film have grossed more or less than the current figure available. Thanks for reaching out! Loibird90 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Balota (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: AdobongPogi (talk · contribs) 15:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I will be reviewing this article. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review
Criteria analysis
- Well-written:
- No issues with the prose.
- Fixed grammar issues
- MOS:FILMPRODUCTION layout issue has been resolved
- Restructured some sections to improve flow
- No words to watch
- Follows MOS:FILM
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- Broad in its coverage:
- "Box office" section has been expanded.
- The article covers all major aspects of the topic approrpiately.
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- All images are tagged.
- The non-free poster has a fair use rationale.
- All images are used appropriately with suitable captions.
- I edited the caption in one of the images to make it more appropriate.
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) |
|
Pass |
| (b) (MoS) |
|
Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | There is a list of properly cited references. | Pass |
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All cited sources are reliable. | Pass |
| (c) (original research) | Source spot check complete. One issue found has been resolved. | Pass |
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No issues found by copyvio detecter. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) |
|
Pass |
| (b) (focused) | The article does not stray out of topic. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article is written neutrally. | Pass |
| Comment | Result |
|---|---|
| No ongoing edit war | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) |
|
Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) |
|
Pass |
Source spot check
- 2. (a)
(b) - 8.
- 11.
- 12.
- 22. (a) (b)
- 37.
- 38.
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass | The article completely meets the criteria of a good article. |
Discussion
Reception section
@AdobongPogi: Please expand the "Box office" subsection. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Production section
@AdobongPogi: Please restructure this section. Follow MOS:FILMPRODUCTION. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Noted. I'll address it later. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 11:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ping. @TheVoicelessWriter, You may check my edits and see if any sections still need fixing? There is something else that I would like to discuss, the "Filming" part. I am quite sure something is missing there, namely the place where the film was shot. Unfortunately, I did not find anything that could say where the movie was filmed. I found only one source mentioning General Trias, Cavite; 1 however, I do not know whether it could be used for making this statement regarding the filming location, but I decided not to use it as a source. I have included an additional sentence in the "Development" sub-section, "
According to Oebanda, the original script was written in 2019
". It is based on the YouTube video of GMA Network. Is it an acceptable source because it is GMA Network's channel? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 04:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)- @AdobongPogi: Check the issue I found while doing the source spot check. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- "
The source does not mention the Film Development Council of the Philippines.
" A new source has been attached. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 22:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)- Is it fine if I move the Accolades section into the Reception section? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Is it fine if I move the Accolades section into the Reception section? AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 05:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- "
- @AdobongPogi: Check the issue I found while doing the source spot check. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.