Talk:Pareh/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

"According to Biran, this was reflected in the angles used." -> Might want to rephrase this a little; I'm assuming this is referring to camera angles so it might be best to link to that, otherwise there's a risk of ambiguity with focal lengths and their angle of view. Done "After editing there were 2,061 metres of film." -> Given that you offer the runtime in the infobox it might be worth including it here, as reel length is directly related to runtime. Done "The American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider considers Pareh one of the two most important cinematic works from the Dutch East Indies during the 1930s." -> What's the other one? Worth including given that you specify two. Done Done. The YouTube post from Forum Lenteng in Jakarta suggests they have a full copy of the film. I've sent an email inquiring as to how much a DVD copy would be, although it's possibly in Dutch (may also be Malay/Indonesian). Haven't found confirmation for the language yet. I'll look into it next time I go to the library; that trip could probably result in a clearer image too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * "Raden" should link to priyayi; at present it links to the homonymic Japanese craft. Done
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Excellent as always.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Grand. I'd like a little more on the plot but I understand it can be very difficult to track this kind of information down so that's really just wishful thinking. You might want to have a look at the BFI's page for the film; although there's next to nothing there it does indicate the film was released under a second Dutch title, too.
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Grand. I'd like a little more on the plot but I understand it can be very difficult to track this kind of information down so that's really just wishful thinking. You might want to have a look at the BFI's page for the film; although there's next to nothing there it does indicate the film was released under a second Dutch title, too.
 * Grand. I'd like a little more on the plot but I understand it can be very difficult to track this kind of information down so that's really just wishful thinking. You might want to have a look at the BFI's page for the film; although there's next to nothing there it does indicate the film was released under a second Dutch title, too.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fine.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Grand.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Both images are free and relevant; if you could identify which Wong is illustrated it'd be great but if it's not clear then that's fine.
 * Both images are free and relevant; if you could identify which Wong is illustrated it'd be great but if it's not clear then that's fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very little needing seen to here; was close to working these out myself but it's late and I'm tired, so I'll be a bastard and let you do it. GRAPPLE   X  04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm happy enough, ready to pass this one now. Well done. GRAPPLE   X  14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)