Talk:Djaoeh Dimata

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic GA Review
Featured articleDjaoeh Dimata is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 21, 2020.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 19, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
August 3, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 5, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a review for Djaoeh Dimata called Ratna Asmara an "unprecedented tragedienne"?
Current status: Featured article


GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 06:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, obviously not much wrong here, but a few quibbles

  • The film's cast continued to act — not sure why this isn't quite right, it reads as if it's unusual for actors to continue to act after making a film. Perhaps something based around "went on to" might give a better sense?
  • As such, his wife Soelastri — "As such" doesn't make sense, it should refer to her, not him, and is redundant anyway
  • Untrusting of his wife and unwilling to accept the possibility that she will be unfaithful, — too many "un-"s for my taste, can it be rephrased?
  • pass her as a maid for Asrad. pass her off as?
  • he and Soelastri reconcile. — "are reconciled" seems more idiomatic
  • and all but one studio was closed — "were"
  • This included all of Multi Film's — "of" is redundant
  • All were of propagandic nature — I'd write "a propagandic nature
  • served more... Max Tera served as — change one of the "served"s

I'll have a second look and do the image/ref checks when you have had time to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy with all the changes above. Round two! just a few suggestions, really, before I sign this off

  • soon reaches wide acclaim. — I just wonder if "achieves" reads better than "reaches"?
  • The image licences are complicated, but seem OK as far as I understand them. Is it possible to process File:Ali Yugo in Djaoeh di Mata.jpg to improve the appearance? I don't know, just asking the question.
  • Part of it is because of the halftoning used in the original printing process, which makes playing with the levels a pain in the butt. This image was printed right on the fold, which is what that black mark is. I could probably get rid of it later, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)\Reply
  • Some of your short-form references have roman font for publications which are italicised in the "Works cited", eg Het Dagblad/Het Dagblad. Is there a logic to this?
  • Essentially because the coding is a pain (have to use .27.27Het Dagblad.27.27 to get it to work properly; this has not been a problem to date in FACs, although I have no issue with changing to italics here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

More

edit