Talk:Saman (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I will start this review tomorrow. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few questions. First I copy edited, so please check that I didn't change the meaning anywhere.

   "Saman was originally intended to be a part of the work in progress Laila Tak Mampir Ke New York (Laila Does Not Come to New York), but later published on its own after the character Larung became too developed; the second part of Laila Tak Mampir Ke New York, Larung, was published in 2001. It was written during a period of seven to eight months while Utami was unemployed.." - I don't understand this sentence. I though Saman was the book she wrote in eight months while unemployed.

   "Although the novel touches on racial harmony, Utami considers the themes undeveloped" - don't quite understand this. She considers her own treatment the the themes in the novel "underveloped"?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   All quotes need a citation directly after them.

   Some places, the quotes could just be removed, as the source is cited at the end of the sentence or paragraph.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Other

• Could you move the material in "Diction" into the paragraph below where it discussed her use of language? Examples are given there, and there is no need to have a whole section for one sentence.
• The picture of Muhammad should not be larger that that of Utami, which it is on my computer!
• Very interesting article. I started a little stub from a red link there: Sastra wangi

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm on it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• That should do it, I think. I'll see what sources on Sastra wangi I can dig up (only needs another 1000 characters to reach DYK...) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remaining problems

• In the lede it says that one of the themes of Saman is authoritarianism, but this is not explained in the plot and the "Themes" section is not specific enough to explain how Utami conveys her political concerns in Saman.
• Problems with the "Themes" section:

• In reading the sources, it is not clear to me if the discussion about politics in the source article refer to themes in Saman or in the sequel Larung (which seems more likely), or even more likely, just answers to the question ("You dislike militarism, but you like (sexually) a man with a military look. Can you explain?") about her views given in an interview with a journalist in 2005.[1]
• Some of the quotes seem to be misleading. They seem to be used out of the context in the source, a 2005 interview in which Utami is answering questions about her views.[2]

1. The "nuclear waste" quote is in double quotes in the source, so it's not clear if Utami literally meant nuclear waste or whether she was speaking figuratively: But his ""nuclear waste"" pile up may take generations to clean. We need to look back at how it has happened.'

Are these scare quotes? Does Indonesia have nuclear waste problem caused by Suharto? She says in the same quote in the source: "So many dishes should be washed." So part of this quote seems to be figurative.

The quote does not seem to be referring specifically to the themes of Saman but more generally to Utami's 2005 political views.

• Made a bit clearer, how's that?

2. The quote in the article: "corrupt, lazy, lov[ing] instant things, bureaucratic, hav[ing] no sportsmanship, [and] hav[ing] no outstanding achievement in sports"

The actual quote in the source is: "If now, we have become corrupt, lazy, love instant things, bureaucratic, have no sportsmanship, have no outstanding achievement in sports, should we blame President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla?"

Again an answer to a question, given in an interview in 2005. It doesn't seem to refer specifically to the content of Saman.

• From the "Themes" section: including a loss of Indonesia's agricultural ability.

It's not clear from the source if this statement applies to the themes of Saman or whether, in answering the journalists question, Utami is speaking from her perspective in 2005.

Again, it comes from the 2005 interview in which Utami is discussing her political views and not specifically the themes of Saman.

• For the above two, the stuff I added hopefully deals with the issues you pointed out.
• More sourced information specific to the "Themes" of Saman is needed to avoid a semblance of OR.

• I'd prefer feedback on the new wording.

One source refers quotes Utami: "in Saman, many people apparently were interested in the part about ghosts and mysticism.[3]

Perhaps this theme could be explored.

• I think the thesis touches on it... I'll take a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've added stuff from the thesis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll be doing this bit by bit as I am also doing a translation of video transcripts for work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is there anything else lacking? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you could give me the rationale behind the belief that the use of the word "however" explains the reason why, when the novel was first released, Utami faced charges that she was not the actual writer. How does "however" accomplish this? MathewTownsend (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• It does not attempt to explain it, but lead from one thing to something that seems to contradict it, similar to "but". If we have "In Saman Utami became one of the first female Indonesian authors to explicitly discuss sexuality, generally a taboo subject for women, in her work.[2] When it was first released Utami faced charges that she was not the actual writer; among those suggested as the author was poet Goenawan Mohamad, known as Utami's mentor." like you had left it, it doesn't flow logically. The reader thinks "Wait, if she is considered one of the first, why did they think that?" It's mainly to aid the train of thought in going from one station to the next. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why was she "disbelieved" as the author? Was it just quackos, or was there a reason? MathewTownsend (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could have sworn that was in there. For its mature themes, mainly. I'll put that (back?) in. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• K, added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• Ok. Better. But I really object to the ugly mangling of a quote:

• "She also said that Indonesians had become "corrupt, lazy, lov[ing] instant things, bureaucratic, hav[ing] no sportsmanship, [and] hav[ing] no outstanding achievement in sports"."
• I think the quote should either be a block quote or the content should be reworded so that the meaning is presented without the mangling.

If now, we have become corrupt, lazy, love instant things, bureaucratic, have no sportsmanship, have no outstanding achievement in sports, should we blame President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla?

• Quotes should not be taken out of context. I don't think the mangled quote adds content to the article that can't be added by rewording the content of the quote into an editor's original wording.

• Also, I think the lede could be tweaked to make it more interesting and more representative of the article content.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the quote. I must have missed your comment about the lede. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed the lede. The novel's plot is very, very, very complex (and in my opinion not exactly fleshed out, but that's OR if I put that in the article), so I had initially left it out of the lede. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• Sorry! I didn't explain about the lede. I don't think the plot should be in the lede! Definitely not.

Perhaps just a little more elaboration on the themes. Instead of saying she deals with "themes of sexuality, authoritarianism, spiritualism and gender roles".

Recomment ditching "gender roles" as that is covered by saying that she writes of sexuality from a female's perspective, and with a frankness that was so taboo for a woman that the book was initially thought to be written by a man.

The second paragraph of the lede is good, and covers the originally derogatory term sastra wangi, that resulted opening novel writing up to young women writing about frank and explicit topics.

• Mention in the lede her spiritual and political themes with just enough detail to interest the reader, rather than just generalities.
• Include more about the "Reception" and that "Critical reception was mixed." And a few words about why it was mixed.

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• LIke this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I think the lede needs proofing, and perhaps some rewording. There are some typos or something. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• That fragment? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply - the lead needs improving

To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.

I don't think the first few sentences mention the most notable features of the article's subject. I don't think the lead summarizes the article.

Everything else seems fine now.

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is the best I can come up with without further suggestions. What exactly is missing from the lede? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Congratulations on a very interesting article!

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)