The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's ready. Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (The Rose of Cikembang) is, in my opinion, the most beautiful work of Chinese Malay literature I've read yet. It's the only one I know of which has been translated to English, and it is also one of few Malay-language novels to get a screen adaptation almost fifty years after publication. This article received a GA review from Dwaipayanc and a peer review from J Milburn (as "quick comments"), Sarastro1, and Wehwalt, leaving the prose shining. I have received permission to run this a little early as my other nom nears completion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Had my say at the peer review, seems worthy.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The prose style throughout is excellent. The organization is appropriate, and it covers all aspects of the topic. The images are used appropriately, with good captions, and the lede effectively summarizes all sections of the article. I am left with very little to suggest for improvement. Still, I was able to find a few potential issues.
All in all, the article is very good, and I anticipate supporting once these issues are addressed. – Quadell ( talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Everything above is fixed, except for issue involved with footnotes and Kwee (2001) references. I have looked carefully over the WP:V section you mention and all of the examples of FAs you list, and you make some important points, but there are still some legitimate issues with clarity and sourcing here.
Great work so far, – Quadell ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This was a very difficult article to spotcheck, since few of the sources are available online and many sources are in Indonesian. But using the online sources, Google Books snippet views, and Google Translate, I was able to confirm refs 2, 3, 38, 39, 40, and 42. In each case, the statement was supported by the source, and in no case was there any plagiarism. In other cases I could at least confirm that the page numbers listed matched up to the general part of the book where the topic was discussed, and for reference 46 I could roughly determine that the statement seemed plausible, given the dense and cryptic executive summary available.
I did find an issue, though: in footnote 38, should the reference to "The Jakarta Post 2012, Remembering" instead say "Ramsay 2012"?
I'm willing to go out on a rather sturdy limb here and confirm that the sourcing seems solid. – Quadell ( talk) 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. This is fully worthy to be given as listed as a featured article. –
Quadell (
talk)
15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support Comments from Jim Very good, just a couple of quibbles before I support.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support: All my concerns were addressed at the PR, and I think the article has improved further since then so I am happy to support. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support I like this article because this literature is comefrom Indonesia...-- Hanamanteo ( talk) 08:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's ready. Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (The Rose of Cikembang) is, in my opinion, the most beautiful work of Chinese Malay literature I've read yet. It's the only one I know of which has been translated to English, and it is also one of few Malay-language novels to get a screen adaptation almost fifty years after publication. This article received a GA review from Dwaipayanc and a peer review from J Milburn (as "quick comments"), Sarastro1, and Wehwalt, leaving the prose shining. I have received permission to run this a little early as my other nom nears completion. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Had my say at the peer review, seems worthy.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The prose style throughout is excellent. The organization is appropriate, and it covers all aspects of the topic. The images are used appropriately, with good captions, and the lede effectively summarizes all sections of the article. I am left with very little to suggest for improvement. Still, I was able to find a few potential issues.
All in all, the article is very good, and I anticipate supporting once these issues are addressed. – Quadell ( talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Everything above is fixed, except for issue involved with footnotes and Kwee (2001) references. I have looked carefully over the WP:V section you mention and all of the examples of FAs you list, and you make some important points, but there are still some legitimate issues with clarity and sourcing here.
Great work so far, – Quadell ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This was a very difficult article to spotcheck, since few of the sources are available online and many sources are in Indonesian. But using the online sources, Google Books snippet views, and Google Translate, I was able to confirm refs 2, 3, 38, 39, 40, and 42. In each case, the statement was supported by the source, and in no case was there any plagiarism. In other cases I could at least confirm that the page numbers listed matched up to the general part of the book where the topic was discussed, and for reference 46 I could roughly determine that the statement seemed plausible, given the dense and cryptic executive summary available.
I did find an issue, though: in footnote 38, should the reference to "The Jakarta Post 2012, Remembering" instead say "Ramsay 2012"?
I'm willing to go out on a rather sturdy limb here and confirm that the sourcing seems solid. – Quadell ( talk) 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. This is fully worthy to be given as listed as a featured article. –
Quadell (
talk)
15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support Comments from Jim Very good, just a couple of quibbles before I support.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support: All my concerns were addressed at the PR, and I think the article has improved further since then so I am happy to support. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support I like this article because this literature is comefrom Indonesia...-- Hanamanteo ( talk) 08:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply