Wikipedia:Peer review/Drama dari Krakatau/archive1

Drama dari Krakatau

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FAC and am interested in getting feedback to help with the preparations.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

Hi Crisco, which variant of English is this in? Just want to check before I comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British English as written by a Canadian from the border of the US and living in a country where English is not standardized (i.e. let's try for British, although I recognise that it will be far from it in some instances). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good stuff, all in all. I made a few copy edits: feel free to revert if you don't like them. Only one main issue with the article as it stands: I got a bit lost in the plot and needed to read it a couple of times before I got it. It may need a bit of a re-working for clarity.

I had a heck of a time summarizing it... are there any places which are more unclear than others, so that I can clarify? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another run through in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I've done some further copy edits around and about: again, feel free to revert or re-edit as you feel fit.

Plot

I've made a fair few edits around this, as I tried writing out my thoughts and ended up with gibbering nonsense instead: it was easier to just do the edits and let you revert my rubbish later.

I like it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What is it about Malay literature that means it must include a kidnapping, or attempted kidnapping?!)

Sure is an easy way to kick off the plot, I must say, and inherently dramatic. Even Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang and Sitti Nurbaya had female characters taken away from male characters against their will, although neither could be considered "kidnapping". I wouldn't be surprised if there was some influence from silat (martial arts) stories. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Moelia informs his father, revealed to be Hasan, of the eruptions, and the regent comes over to the former's home.": This one could probably do with some re-working—took me a second or two to remember who the regent was.

How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - looks much better! - SchroCat (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

"Kwee was known as a realist": Asks for a "whom?" tab to be put in there! As you follow up with (what looks like) a quote by the man himself, why not "Kwee considered himself a realist and thought it…"?
- I don't think I've seen anyone say otherwise, but I agree that your phrasing works better with the "Themes" section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are OK, and that you don't mind that I've gone heavily into the ce rather than comment route! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like it, actually. Nice and succinct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Very meagre gleanings, I'm afraid, though of course that's rather a compliment in its way.

Lead
- "(vernacular Malay for Drama of Krakatoa) is a 1929 vernacular Malay novel" – "vernacular Malay twice" in one sentence is a bit of a jingle, but if it's unavoidable for accuracy, so be it
  - If another reviewer takes issue, I'll be glad to remove either the first or second instance. I agree, the repetition is nasty, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the novel had already been performed on stage" – an adaptation of the novel
  - "adapted for the stage", perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
- "a short visit with Noesa Brama" – if you're going for BrEng, "with" and "visit" are rarely used together in these isles, except for nasty things: visited with a plague of boils, for example. I'd say "then briefly visits NB before returning home"
  - Sure thing. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the men then convince … Moelia convinces the police" – one of them might be "persuade" for variety. (Strictly in BrEng they should both be persuade, but I do not press the point. We persuade to but convince that. Ignore me. Just the old codger rumbling on.)
  - I trust this is acceptable? No more convincing ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spot-on. I'm both persuaded and convinced. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "before the mountain erupts" but you've just told us it's already erupted.
  - Sorry, "erupts a second time".15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- "hoping that Noesa Brama will accept Moelia to be Retna Sari's husband" – I had to read this twice before getting your meaning: perhaps "hoping that Noesa Brama will consent to the marriage of Moelia and Retna Sari"?
  - Done, but would "consent to Moelia marrying Retna Sari" work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Grammatically you need a gerund in that formation: "consent to Moelia's marrying Retna Sar", which I think makes the prose bumpy. Sorry for pedantry, but you did ask. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history and reception
- adapting the 1972 spelling reform – adapting or adopting?
  - D'oh! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "become king of the Baduy, before surrendering all his power to his daughter" – ambiguous. Perhaps, "become king of the Baduy; he then surrenders all his power to his daughter"
  - Agree and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. You know, one of the privileges and pleasures of reviewing for Wikipedia is running across subjects one knows nothing of and finding them absorbing. I know a lot more (still not much, but more nevertheless) about your topics, and mediaeval art, polar explorers, astronomy, railways and much else than I did before engaging in this marvellous enterprise. On to FAC. Please let me when I can look in there. – Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and thank you for having a look at this (admittedly obscure; I doubt anyone else in my program has read the novel) topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments

(Sliding into the empty seat at the back of the class, hoping not to be noticed by the nominator.) Sorry for my lateness :-/

"...in total he consulted 15 books, all in English or Dutch." – To clarify, were they mixed English/Dutch, definitely English, definitely Dutch or don't we know. I only ask as we seem so certain of the amount, yet so vague of the nationality.

I'd assume each individual book was either entirely English or entirely Dutch. Kwee was, by standards of the time, quite well educated, and neither language would have been a problem for him. He even used gratuitous English similar to what you'd find in more modern, popular works (though not nearly as often). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are missing a full stop from the end of ref 16.

Got it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly short review, owing to the stellar cast before me. Cassianto ^Talk 19:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]