Talk:Kedok Ketawa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I'll tackle this one for you Crisco! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	You mention the book Dracula; maybe provide a date next to it ? Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with being more comprehensive; for instance other than calling it a "bandit film" it doesn't describe any of the plot of Kedok Ketawa. Furthermore, I'm uneasy with the entire opening sentence: "Kedok Ketawa (literally The Laughing Mask) is a likely-lost 1940 bandit film from the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)". Rather than "literally", how about "in English", and why not include the Dutch title here as well, considering you describe how it was advertised under that title elsewhere in this article. I think that you should link to Indonesia, and that the term "likely-lost" could be removed in favour of a separate sentence stating "It is now considered a lost film, with no known surviving copies." Expanded. As for the opening sentence, WP:OVERLINK suggests not linking countries, writing "English" instead of "Literally" could imply that it received an English-language release (which sources don't support). Likely lost has become its own sentence, although I think "with no known surviving copies" is redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'm perplexed by the use of titles towards the end: "Footnotes" would be better classed as notes, "References" as "Footnotes", and "Works Cited" as "Bibliography". All could then be brought under a heading of "References". Changed to the format used at Terang Boelan, an FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Putting this on hold till these issues are dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Replied above — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, thanks Cristo. I'm still not entirely happy with "It is likely lost" sentence in the introduction, but I'll definitely pass this one. If you have the time and inclination to return the favour, I have a film page over at Uncle David awaiting GA review; no pressure to do so though. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)