Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kedok Ketawa/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:56, 15 August 2014.

Kedok Ketawa

 * Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Union Films' first production, The Laughing Mask. Although modern sources don't have a plot summary (see Biran [2009] and the Indonesian Film Catalogue), I was lucky enough to find a review which went into some detail on the story. This is easily the most complete source on this likely lost film, in any language. I hope you enjoy the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Image is appropriately captioned. Licensing is fine as-is, but it's nearly at the PD-text level. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Singora

Not a bad article! It's interesting, but the prose could be spiced up a bit.


 * 1. The first paragraph in the lede introduces us to four actors who are unknown and destined to remain so. I don't believe these guys are so central to the article that they warrant inclusion in this prime piece of Wiki real estate.
 * 2. The clause "The first production of Union Films" is awkward.
 * 3. The final sentence in the lede tells us that the film is likely lost. Note the word "likely".
 * 4. PLOT. This: "a rich man is interested in taking Minarsih to be his wife". The prose strikes me as rather childlike.
 * 5. PLOT. "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but he is soon joined by the a masked vigilante".
 * 5.1 Basuki + a redundant "he".
 * 5.2. Is it "the masked vigilante" or "a masked vigilante"?
 * 6. PLOT. "Basuki and Minarsih can live together in peace". Is that it? Nothing else?
 * 7. PRODUCTION. "Fatimah and Basoeki were nobles with relatively extensive educations". What's an extensive education? Why not show rather than tell?
 * 8. RELEASE AND RECEPTION. In the second paragraph you use the verb "praise" three times in just four sentences. How about "laud" or "commend" or "commented positively on"?
 * 9. LEGACY. In paragraph two you talk again about how the film is "likely" lost and observe that "visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider suggests that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost". No. Mr Heider writes that movies made before 1950 have been lost. He's not suggesting anything, nor is he talking about probabilities. I think you should contrast Heider's claim with a while construction:
 * 9.1 While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider has written that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost, J.B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives. Furthermore, film historian Misbach Yusa Biran notes that several Japanese propaganda films have survived at the Netherlands Government Information Service. (Note: you don't need definite articles when introducing Heider and Biran.)
 * 9.2. So in whose opinion is the movie "likely" lost? Are you sure this isn't simply your own opinion?
 * 10. See this URL for Heider's book: http://books.google.ca/books?id=m4DVrBo91lEC&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false. It points directly to page 14. Use this instead of the URL you've currently got.

Good luck!! Singora (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, glad to see you're back at FAC. Replies follow:
 * 1: Of the four, Basoeki Resobowo is probably the only one likely to get an article (though that would mostly be for his work as an artist and not his acting). But since WP:REDLINK is against RL-ing biographies, I haven't done so. As for removing the names entirely, that wouldn't fly. I'd consider removing Eddy Kock, since his is the only role not explicit in the plot summary that has surfaced... but wholesale removal would go against expectations for a film. If this was something like Eulis Atjih, in which the actors names aren't even known, sure... but not for something with a definite cast.
 * 2: Reworked.
 * 3: See reply below.
 * 4: Reworked a little bit. The source doesn't go into any more detail, sadly.
 * 5: Nixed "he". I think from a purely grammatical POV both are acceptable, but I feel as though "a" is more natural.
 * 6: That's where the review stops. As I mentioned in my nomination statement, that's already more than any source I've seen since.
 * 7: In the source, Fatimah is only said to be "educated", while Basoeki is confirmed to have graduated from AMS (equivalent to senior high school). I've removed "relatively" and added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8: Now only one.
 * 9: The direct quote is "films made before 1950 have been lost and the few films preserved from the 1950s are rarely seen". The contrast between the unqualified "films made before 1950" and "the few films preserved from the 1950s" suggests that there is an implied "all" in that sentence. I'm not the only one with this reading of Heider's text, see Jean Gelman Taylor's article in Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia. As for the second point, I've changed to "may" rather than "likely", as in the historical context the possibility is far too likely to simply ignore it and remove the paragraph (and thus imply that the film is still extant). Sadly, there are no sources that say explicitly that it is lost, which would make my job a lot easier. I think the only Indies film which sources explicitly state to be lost is Terang Boelan. To be honest, I think "likely" is still defensible, as the proportion of films which we can verify have survived (through Kristanto's catalogue, or elsewhere such as in Sinematek's inventory [which I have a copy of, although it's technically unpublished]) is considerably lower than the number which we cannot verify.
 * 10: I prefer not pointing to single pages using Google Books, as it keeps it simpler and easier to read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your parenthetical: I have generally avoided using anarthrous nominal premodifiers for the articles I write in British English, upon recommendation of British users such as Tim riley and SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

More comments from Singora


 * 1. RE: "Union Films' first production, it was directed by Jo An Djan and starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo". Isn't this a non-sequitur?
 * 1.1. How about "The movie was Union Films' first production and directed by Jo An Djan; it starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo"?
 * 2. RE: "The film follows a young couple who face off against criminals". Is "face off" truly encyclopedic?
 * 3. RE: "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but is soon joined by the a masked vigilante". What's wrong with this?
 * 4. RE: "emphasising the quality of its cinematography and acting". I like that! Much better.
 * 5. RE: "may now be lost". This still strikes me as bordering on original research. It's your opinion: it's a conclusion you've drawn from the sources.
 * 6. RE: Google Books. Why does not pointing to the page you're referring to keep things "simpler and easier to read"? Why should I (your intended audience) have to search the book to find the passage you're quoting?
 * 7. RE: anarthrous nominal premodifiers. Wow! That is vastly superior pretentiousness!

PS. Do you need the full stop after "sweet romance"?

As I said before, it's a good article. I guess you now need a few more guys to come along and give opinions and feedback.

Singora (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Tried reworking in a way which avoids "movie".
 * 2. Have gone with "fight off"
 * 3. It hasn't won a Pulitzer? (fixed by removing "the")
 * 4. Thanks!
 * 5. Short of a complete (or, relatively complete, considering how documentation from Indonesia ends up in the weirdest places... I recall hearing that a nearly complete collection of the first 10 years of Soeara Moehammadijah was in... Chicago, of all places) inventory of what films are now extant (none existent, as far as I've seen; to make one as a journal article would be on my to do list if I could find a backer, since such an endeavour would mean the Netherlands, Jakarta, and Japan, at the very least, and probably Singapore) there appears to be little chance of a solid "yes" or "no" either way. I believe the sources support a "may" or "might", and that implying that the film is still extent by omitting such information would be a poor overview of sources. I would welcome any way of phrasing this that does not violate your understanding of OR, but I cannot abide by wholesale removal. Perhaps something like "JB Kristanto's Indonesian Film Catalogue does not record the film being held at Sinematek Indonesia", but then people would ask "so what?".
 * 6. At the code level, it's simpler and takes up less space. It is also less likely to confuse people if the book is not previewable in their area (as Google sets it by location... there are a lot of full view books that I can't access from Indonesia), since they shouldn't expect to go straight to a page.
 * 7. I agree, a little, but if that's the preferred form in BrE (and style guides support it) I guess that's how it must be for formal writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments to follow a.s.a.p. – If (said he, peering censoriously over the top of his reading glasses) the mention of the undersigned was merely to point out what a prim and proper native English writer would write, I shall be dishing out 100 lines for your impertinence. If, on the other hand, as I strongly suspect, it was a crafty ploy to get me to join this review it has succeeded admirably. Give me till tomorrow, please, and I'll review and pitch in here.  Tim riley  talk    19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank ye, oh great and fair school master of the three Wikis — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. On first looking at it I was rather taken aback at the brevity of the article, but having read it carefully I can't think what more could usefully be said. The text is clear, the sourcing is thorough and broad, and I imagine in the circumstances described in the article that it is as well illustrated as it could possibly be. If we're playing the false title game, there is one at "While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider", but we shan't fall out over that. The lead is short, but then so is the article, and it would be foolish to pad the lead out just to meet WP norms. As far as I can see this page meets the FA criteria, and I see no reason to oppose.  Tim riley  talk    15:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Blast! One lousy mistake away from no comments! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Singora -- the Dracuala connection


 * 1. See this link https://www.google.com/search?q=Kedok+Ketawa+dracula#q=Kedok+Ketawa+dracula&tbm=bks
 * 2. I'm searching Google books for Kedok Ketawa dracula
 * 3. See what comes up ..............
 * 4. East-West Film Journal - Volume 6, Issue 2 - Page 102: This lesson was applied religiously until the arrival of the Japanese army in 1942: Tar- zan became Alang-Alang and Dracula became Kedok Ketawa and Tengkorak Hidup. This tradition is still part of Indonesia's film business culture.
 * 5. Malaysian Films: The Beginning: The influence of Dracula films was seen in the birth of Kedok Ketawa or Topeng Ketawa produced by the Union Film Company in 1940 which was considered to have vastly improved in terms of quality and, hence, went down well with the ...
 * 6. Shadows on the silver screen: Kedok Ketawa (The Laughing Mask) were mere imitations of Dracula films which were in circulation before the beginning of the Japanese occupation in 1942.

Your article claims the film "may" have been influenced by Dracula. Singora (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, these sources are a bit more affirmative than the one I'd cited. I'll see if I can get the full article of the East-West Film Journal at WP:RX, as that connects it to the cultural context. Thanks for the link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Worked in, although I've also left a note that neither of these sources "show" and not "tell". Said note may be made a footnote if you think it's distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: Nicely put together, well-supported and no issues that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by Taylor Trescott
 * "Starring Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo." Awkward
 * Fragment nuked, and reworked in alphabetical order. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "performed by S Poniman" if Poniman is a surname, the S should be dropped since it's already mentioned
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you wait until Reception to link Hollywood when Production mentions it twice?
 * Those mentions were added considerably later. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ref 4 has "232–33", ref 7 has "232–233"
 * Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support looks good - but in the refs abbreviation of page numbers is still not consistent (just #9).  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, and I've gotten that last one. If this is a source review, could you note that explicitly for the delegate? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All sources appear to be formatted fine now. There's your source review.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
 * "critic-cum-screenwriter": In scholarly writing ... sure. On Wikipedia ... most of our readers will giggle and have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I'm not always sure what it means ... "as", "with", "and" and "in the role of" are common meanings. I went with "and".
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I might overuse "-cum-" a bit. Thanks for the copyedit and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth
So why did I choose this particular FAC to review? Well, firstly, Crisco 1492 is assiduous in reviewing other people's nominations and secondly, its a nice short article! A few points on the prose:
 * "Basuki is unable to fight them back, ..." - This may be idiomatic in some versions of English but it sounds odd to me (UK).
 * Fixed (repel). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "... revived the ailing domestic film industry." - Domestic to where?
 * Edited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "... were nobles with formal educations." - I would use the singular "education" here.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Following the success of Terang Boelan (1937; based on The Jungle Princess), the domestic film industry began to model their productions after Hollywood works. This was expected to ensure financial success." - The second sentence is a bit short and could be linked to the first with an "as".
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Tan's Film had released Gagak Item (The Black Crow), with Rd Mochtar as the masked Black Crow, in 1939, and later releases, including Java Industrial Film's 1941 release Srigala Item (The Black Wolf), continued the trend." - Too many "releases" in this sentence.
 * Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Accord to the review, the film surpassed expectations ..." - Don't you mean "according"?
 * Yeah, that's it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing, Cwmhiraeth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm happy with the alterations you have made and support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I missed a lot here, I'll go back through the ones I've done the last couple of days. - Dank (push to talk) 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, Dan. You did/do great. I'm partly to blame too; I missed that the copyedits introduced an error. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support not really much to quibble about.
 * Production
 * "film following a masked hero" possibly "featuring" for "following"
 * Sounds good. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Release
 * A translation of the Dutch title? I'm pretty clear on what it means, but is the reader?
 * Added as a footnote, since the translation for both is pretty much the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always, for your review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.