Talk:The Dancer (2011 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Bloody hell, I lost a review of this to a computer crash. I'll see what comes back to me and hope for the best.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

   Just a few points.
   It took a bit of reading to see that the film was adapted from a book (as opposed to, say, a play), perhaps mention that Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk is a novel at its first mention.
   Added "of novels" after trilogy in the lede
   "Rasus also has a crush on her" -> This is a bit too euphemistic for me. Pehaps "Rasus also has strong feelings for her" or "Rasus is also in love with her".
   Changed to "romantic feelings for"
   "Salman Aristo, known for his scripts for Ayat-Ayat Cinta (Verses of Love; 2008) and Laskar Pelangi (Rainbow Warriors; 2009) spearheaded a script.[4] The script went through twelve drafts and took two years of research." -> A lot of uses of the word "script" here. Perhaps replace one instance with "screenplay", and change "spearheaded a script" to "spearheaded the writing".
   Good idea, changed
   "Director Ifa Isfansyah attempted to cast the lead role there, but failed after several months looking." -> I assume the lead role is Srintil, but perhaps this could be specified here.
   Added
   "Sang Penari was nominated for nine awards at the 2011 Indonesian Film Festival, winning four." -> I would move this sentence to the "Awards" section. It could maybe be expanded to state in prose what was won, and what films it lost to in other categories, but that's not necessary if you'd rather not include it.
   I think the table explains it adequately, with the text as a summary. Moved to "Awards"

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Sources seem fine to me.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Another review might be a nice addition but given the overall length the section doesn't feel disproportionately small. What does seem small is Category:Banyumasan-language films, though! I've created the category page so it doesn't show as a red link; keep an eye out in case there's anything more that could be added to it.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Doesn't seem to be an issue.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems grand to me.

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:

   Sole image is used appropriately; non-free but with a solid and valid rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not a lot of work to do, shouldn't be too hard to fix. Keeping this on hold for now until the issues mentioned are addressed. GRAPPLE X 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've taken care of all the issues you've spotted. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Ready to pass this one, well done! GRAPPLE X 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)