Talk:Djaoeh Dimata/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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?

• How's remained active in the Indonesian film industry? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• As such, his wife Soelastri — "As such" doesn't make sense, it should refer to her, not him, and is redundant anyway

• Trying to show causality, seems I've failed. Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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?

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• pass her as a maid for Asrad. — pass her off as?

• Dur. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• he and Soelastri reconcile. — "are reconciled" seems more idiomatic

• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• and all but one studio was closed — "were"

• All but one studio were closed sounds very odd to me, so I've gone with another choice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• This included all of Multi Film's — "of" is redundant

• Removed "all" as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• All were of propagandic nature — I'd write "a propagandic nature

• Simplified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• served more... Max Tera served as — change one of the "served"s

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Thanks for the review, hope you found the article interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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"?

• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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)\

• I've played with the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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

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: