Talk:Union Films/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vivvt (talk · contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Will start with the review in a while. This is my first GA review so please feel free to correct me if required.
 * Images are relevant to the topic and from Commons so no issues with those.


 * Small but nicely written article. I have couple of minor points. Assuming good faith as most of the sources are in Indonesian.
 * "an anonymous review in Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad praised the cinematography". Does not add much value as the reviewer itself is unknown.
 * Are you saying the review has little value, or the word "anonymous"? I could easily trim the latter, and the former could probably be cut as we already have a review of that film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, you need not mention "anonymous".
 * Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Jo An Djan had left the company for Populair's Film." The sentence does not go in a flow.
 * Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "one reviewer, for the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad," Any chance to find who is it? Same for "one reviewer, from the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad"
 * None of the reviews from the Indies that I've read (and that's quite a few, considering how many articles on these films I've written) are credited. It appears, though I don't have a reference to back me up, that there was no film criticism industry in the Indies. No awards to speak of, no critics with syndicated columns or large followings. Doesn't surprise me, really, considering how few non-Dutch residents could read.15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will AGF here.
 * The sources "(untitled)". De Indische Courant (Batavia) and "(untitled)". The Straits Times (Singapore). Any chance to get the name?
 * They are advertisements. By their very nature, they have no headline/name. I've used this format in several FAs already, including Asmara Moerni.15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind titling it as "Advertisement"?
 * I'd prefer not to, as "Advertisement" is not the headline. The Cite News field title= is generally used for headlines, which these sources lack. Having (untitled) (or perhaps (untitled advertisement), though I prefer the simple (untitled) since it saves space) indicates that this is not the title, but rather a notation from the writer citing the advertisement. It's common to use text in parentheses like this, at least in written prose; compare such additions as [sic]. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * Wiki-link De Indische Courant, The Straits Times and University of Hawaii Press.
 * In the references? That is not required by any policy, and personally I consider it overlinking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I found it very useful for most of the articles. Also, it wouldn't be over-linked for this article at least as same publisher is not being referred multiple times. I am not sure about the policy but I have been asked to do so in some of the reviews so far.
 * Who asked you? That's definitely not part of referencing policy: WP:CITEHOW states that one should include publishers, but not necessarily link them (one may, or may not), and indeed per WP:CITESTYLE there is no single referencing style. Citing sources/Example style (linked from policy as a manual for reference formatting, though not a policy in its own) does not link publishers/newspapers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I would be useful for me in the future.

Once these issues are resolved or answered, I will be happy to promote this article to GA. -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 15:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking up this review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments answered. -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 16:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After the review, I believe the article passes the GA criteria, hence promoting to GA. Congrats and Good job! -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 15:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)