Talk:Ucu Agustin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Danger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Overall, very interesting article about a topic under-covered on Wikipedia. Good work with finding a variety of sources. There are some problems with going beyond what the source says. If you could recheck the portions supported by Indonesian language sources for this sort of over-reaching, that'd be great; Google Translate isn't really sufficient for this sort of thing!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Great lead.
• "she was dissatisfied with the lack of opportunities for writing human interest pieces dealing with social issues": This seems wordy. I think "human interest pieces" is redundant/inaccurate, perhaps omit that phrase.

• Sounds fine. Cut.

• "With the Rp. 25 million (US$ 3,000) in prize money from the competition, Ucu shot the documentary using a camera loaned to her by the competition;" this doesn't make much sense. Did she have to rent the camera?

• Source says "The loan of a camera was among the prizes awarded to the winners, apart from the prize money of Rp 25 million to produce each film." It was lent to her by the competition. Any suggested rewordings?

• Hmm... how about "She received Rp 25 million in prize money and was lent a professional camera by the competition sponsors." or something like that. Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reworded and made more succinct.

• Generally, there are problems with conciseness; needs a copyedit.

• I'll give it a once over and try and trim extra verbosity.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• "Previously believing that everything was a gift from Allah, this discovery led her to become more critical of the world around her; she cites it as the reason she became interested in journalism.": This sentence seems to editorialize and I can't find support for it in the source given. The source seems to say instead that she began to see negative things around her as well as good things.

• From the source: ... "everything surrounding her was a good thing that came from “above”." I admit that it may be a bit strong, so I'll trim it.

• "Ucu has noted that "inspiring" individuals make for better documentaries, as the audience may be influenced by the hard lives faced by the subjects." I don't think this is supported by the source given.

• Reworded.

• "It drew the conclusion that the ignorance of the health authority and the government was to blame." I think this is a stronger statement than the source supports.

Rereading the source, I agree. Cut.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold pending a thorough copyedit and dealing with some OR-ish sentences Everything looks good now. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Trimmed by 340 characters or so. Issues indicated above have been addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The rewording is very good. Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've dealt with the last issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)