Talk:Gagak Item

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gagak Item/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

On it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Made just one tweak; please feel free to revert if you disagree.

More:

• " the H. Dumas' musical troupe Lief Java" -- seems like this should be either "H. Dumas' musical troupe" or "the H. Dumas musical troupe"?

• You're right, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "was premiered" -- I'm never sure on this usage, but would it be better to say simply "Gagak Item premiered"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Tiny questions above. Sources are largely not accessible (or in Dutch) but accepted in good faith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Brief, but that's understandable for a lost film.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

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.

Talk page comments

Per Crisco's request:

Lede

• Can nothing be said in the lede about the film's genre in general terms?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Body
• I would either expand or merge the premise section. It is too short to stand on its own. I take it this is one where even the plot is lost?

• I have not had any luck with the plot in any of the old newspapers. I did have luck with Kedok Ketawa (and was pleasantly surprised too), but none here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "titular 'Gagak Item'" Not quite sure what you mean here.

• Changed to "bandit" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can anything be gained by consulting a copy of the novelization or not? Assuming it is findable, that is.

• I looked on WorldCat and did not find anything with "Gagak Item" or "Gagak" and "Tan's"; it may not be extant. Misbach doesn't give much information, only the publisher (which I've added) and "The books which were published included Gagak Item, Siti Akbari, and Sorga Katoedjoe." (I have a copy of the latter; novelisations from Kolff-Buning at WorldCat). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you've done a lot given how few details seem to be extant. Obviously, any further detail would be good, but if there's only a few around, what can you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal review

This looks good. It is very short, but I think it is comprehensive, detailed and interesting enough to be a FA. Some may object on the "too short" grounds (and there is probably a theoertical lower limit to FA length) but for me, the coverage is deep enough and it seems to cover the material well so I don't have a problem. But as it is so short, I think what is there needs to be perfect, so here are some nit-picks!

• "The black-and-white film, which reused the cast and crew from the 1937 hit Terang Boelan (Full Moon)": I don't think a film can re-use anything. Perhaps "featured"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "was a fair commercial success": How are we defining "fair"? Seems a bit woolly.

• Nixed "fair"; was meant to indicate "not that big, but not unsuccessful" as Fatima and Terang Boelan were much bigger successes (although we don't have solid figures for Gagak Item. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Saeroen, a journalist turned screenwriter for Terang Boelan and Fatima": Should this be "journalist-turned-screenwriter"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "had first worked together on Albert Balink's 1937 blockbuster Terang Boelan (Full Moon), before joining Tan's in 1938": My reading of this would be "...before joining Tan's [blockbuster]" as a blockbuster is the last thing they worked on.

• So do you think Tan's Film should be written explicitly? (We're lucky The Teng Chun didn't have a role here... his family name was "The" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The film, a love story, follows a girl and a masked man known as "Gagak Item" ("Black Raven") and was set in rural Buitenzorg": Mixed tenses here (follows...was set)

• Fixed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the titular bandit was similar to Zorro, a character popular in the Indies at the time, similar bandits had been a staple of travelling theatre troupes beginning in the early 1930s.": Bandit ... bandits.

• Figures? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The film had six songs, performed by H. Dumas' musical troupe Lief Java featuring vocals by Annie Landauw": Something a little off here; a comma needed after Java? Otherwise we have a musical troupe which features vocals.

• Added "and" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item was released in late 1939 and saw screenings": I never like "saw" in this sense: what did the film see?? But feel free to ignore my increasingly insane rants on this one.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Some screenings of the film, also advertised under the Dutch title De Zwarte Raaf, had Dutch-language subtitles.": While this is probably obvious to most people, there may be someone who wonders why (assuming they miss the whole Dutch East Indies thing.

• Added a note (although I sincerely hope most people would get it, considering we've also mentioned Buitenzorg above) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "A novelisation of the film, published by the Yogyakarta-based Kolff-Buning, followed soon after": It can't follow before, so perhaps "soon followed".

• Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item was one of four domestically produced films released": Perhaps "domestically-produced films"?

• domestic productions — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the local film industry had seen a significant downturn following the onset of the Great Depression and had only begun recovering following the release of Terang Boelan": We have another "seen/saw" here. Also, perhaps the one thing missing from the article is a bit of background to this. You had a pretty big background section in Terang Boelan; could any of this be re-used? I don't think it would hurt.

Undergone? There's a bit that might be useful, but some in-depth explanation would probably only be relevant for Pareh, Terang Boelan, and Fatima; as Gagak Item followed on two blockbusters, such context would probably be going a bit too broad. Added a sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "although not as much as the cast's earlier films": Given that it was not only the cast that were returning, perhaps a more inclusive term would be better.
• "was a fair success": Again, how are we judging fair? If available, some numbers would be nice, but I suspect they do not exist.

Reworded — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Saeroen, Joshua Wong, and Mochtar all left the company in 1940"

• Done

• "Through 1941 Tan's posted large losses, and it was ultimately shut down following the Japanese occupation in early 1942."

• Done

• I'm assuming no further details of the plot are available; perhaps a note somewhere to indicate this so that no-one is complaining that there is no plot section. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• A hidden note, perhaps? I don't think I could have such a note and reference it too. Such a note would be as follows, essentially:

<quote>Biran only provides a single sentence describing Gagak Item's plot. The film's entry in the Indonesian Film Database does not include a plot summary and available contemporary reviews do not give any further details. (This is the hard to cite part) The novelisation is not held in any of the libraries searchable through WorldCat.</quote>