Talk:Si Ronda

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic GA Review
Featured articleSi Ronda 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 September 13, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 15, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 6, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Lie Tek Swie's Si Ronda (The Watchman) was the debut of Bachtiar Effendi?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Si Ronda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 05:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will start soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • I feel there should be more content on plot of the film. Just one sentence looks insufficient. If it was based on a popular play, and was remade 50 years later, there should be more plot line available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • A story based on the series of plays was made fifty years later, certainly not a scene-for-scene remake. What was in the play(s) and what was ultimately in this film are not necessarily the same, and giving the plot summary for a play or later film (and not this one) would be intellectually dishonest. As is, none of the references I've had access to discuss this film's plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Assuming that available sources were all searched (majority in Indonesian), and no more information is available (plot or any other aspect of the film), I think there are no other issues with this article. It is written well, has appropriate references, has appropriately licensed images, and follows MoS. Only issue was coverage, and, as Crisco has explained, there is no more data. So, I have no problem in promoting this to GA. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
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.