This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gagak Item article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Gagak Item 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 2, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 9, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a reviewer praised
Roekiah's (pictured) "demure" acting in
Gagak Item (Black Raven)? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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:
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. | |
![]() |
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 |
Per Crisco's request:
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)
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!
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.
Hi Crisco, hope you don't mind me chipping in. I think this is a lovely article. IMO, length is irrelevant with its quality being the important bit. I for one would by happy to support this at FAC should it feature. I boldly changed p to pp for page ranges, feel free to revert if I'm talking rubbish.
Comments from SchroCat ( talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
All very interesting—an area of film history that I knew absolutely nothing about. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, but feel free to revert them if you don't agree. Some comments for you to think over, both general and specific; I appreciate the film has been lost for 75 years and there is probably precious little written about it, so ignore the stupidly obvious manner of the questions if you've already looked and found nothing to write about! It does look thin, but I appreciate that you've probably exhausted every and all avenue of research to squeeze out as much as you have, so the questions are as much about seeing if there are possible areas for you to add some detail to the article as much as anything else. (and apologies for the repetition on the points from others - I didn't see their input until it came to posting mine!)
That's fine, as it just adds a little more colour to the background. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC) What you have is very good, and if that's the limit of all the available information on this topic then at least you know it won't be the smallest FA on the table! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Surely the movie must have a storyline? Afriendlyreadervisiting ( talk) 02:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gagak Item article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Gagak Item 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 2, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 9, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a reviewer praised
Roekiah's (pictured) "demure" acting in
Gagak Item (Black Raven)? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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:
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. | |
![]() |
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 |
Per Crisco's request:
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)
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!
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.
Hi Crisco, hope you don't mind me chipping in. I think this is a lovely article. IMO, length is irrelevant with its quality being the important bit. I for one would by happy to support this at FAC should it feature. I boldly changed p to pp for page ranges, feel free to revert if I'm talking rubbish.
Comments from SchroCat ( talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
All very interesting—an area of film history that I knew absolutely nothing about. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, but feel free to revert them if you don't agree. Some comments for you to think over, both general and specific; I appreciate the film has been lost for 75 years and there is probably precious little written about it, so ignore the stupidly obvious manner of the questions if you've already looked and found nothing to write about! It does look thin, but I appreciate that you've probably exhausted every and all avenue of research to squeeze out as much as you have, so the questions are as much about seeing if there are possible areas for you to add some detail to the article as much as anything else. (and apologies for the repetition on the points from others - I didn't see their input until it came to posting mine!)
That's fine, as it just adds a little more colour to the background. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC) What you have is very good, and if that's the limit of all the available information on this topic then at least you know it won't be the smallest FA on the table! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Surely the movie must have a storyline? Afriendlyreadervisiting ( talk) 02:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)