Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Si Ronda/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 08:04, 15 July 2014.

Si Ronda

 * Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a film which is not only lost, but for which very little sourcing is available (and yes, I have a sourced statement that little reference material is available). Si Ronda is a silat film in a similar vein to the film Si Tjonat, although sadly not based on a novel and thus the exact plot isn't certain. Produced by Tan's Film, it was one in a fairly long line of films in the genre, although I've never seen any sources which discuss how well it was received. I think this is as comprehensive an article as anyone can expect for this film, even with its startling brevity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comments Support from Taylor Trescott

Oooooh... aiming for the shortest FA, I see. Bold move. Here's some comments because I can't resist lost film articles.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there once a picture of the film in this article? I recall one
 * There used to be, but after my visit to Sinematek Indonesia in December I found that Biran had been mistaken in labeling it Si Ronda. My notes indicate that the image was included in the 15 January 1930 edition of Doenia Film (which I don't seem to have photographed) but with a different title (as stated here). As such, I removed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't there be a period after the A in A Loepias if it stands for something? I see Nancy Bikin Pembalesan uses a full stop
 * Removed in NBP, in accordance with BrE grammar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Might be helpful to say Nancy Bikin Pembalesan came out in May
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 5 says "Retrieved 22 July 2012." Doesn't seem like it, since this article was created in April 2013 :)
 * I first retrieved that reference when writing List of films of the Dutch East Indies in ... July 2012 I just reused the bibliographic information (while double checking the source, of course). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Muahahaha... always one step ahead.
 * Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support looks comprehensive enough. Can't wait to see this article pop up in sentences like "it's not as short as Si Ronda" in FACs down the line.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. We used to quote MissingNo., but now that doesn't even appear to be in the top 10. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, one comment  Only trivial issue is that initials are inconsistent, one with a full stop, one without Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim, got that G fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support almost nothing to quibble with
 * Lede
 * "existing" maybe "contemporary". Just think "existing" might be a reference to the stage play surviving, unlike the film.
 * "this silent film" you use "film" three times in a short span starting here.

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both done, thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Eric   Corbett 
 * Short and sweet I suppose, but I do have a few reservations. The easy ones first:
 * Why is silat italicised? We don't italicise judo or aikido for instance.
 * Judo, at the very least, has common currency, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare the frequency of aikido and silat in the common usage. English sources seem to italicise silat on first use like this or italicise it throughout, like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can nothing be done to avoid the run-on blue links in "silent silat"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bachtiar Effendi would later leave Tan's Film to head a magazine." Why the subjunctive "would ... leave" rather than the rather more straightforward "left", and "later" in the context of an image caption is pretty much meaningless, so why not say when he left?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Momo continued acting until the 1940s, with Tan's until 1932 and with Standard Film in 1941." I think it's stretching it a bit to call 1941 "into the 1940s", plural.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And now for my major concern, which is the lack of any kind of plot summary or even any idea what the film is actually about. We're told that "... in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger, with similar themes", but what are those themes? Does the stage play on which the film was based give us no clues? Does the 1978 remake follow the same story? How did the 1978 filmmakers know what the story was if we don't?
 * None of my sources indicate whether or not the 1978 version of the story had the same plot. Considering the very different socio-political context of the 1978 version, in which it was common for Dutchmen to be the enemies (compare the 1970s adaptations of Si Pitung's story), and the 1920s, in which even the hint that a Dutchman had acted unethically was enough to cause government censure (Salah Asuhan originally had Corrie as a prostitute, but it had to be changed... I'll dig up the ref if you want it), I am hesitant to assume they have more than a passing similarity. The same goes for the lenong play; a current production would not necessarily have the same story as a 1920s production, in part because lenong itself (particularly in the 1920s, before literacy was common among the commoners) is not in the Western tradition of scripted works which are preserved in writing. As for the "themes", perhaps that was the wrong word; I've removed that clause entirely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How can "A second movie based on the story, Si Ronda Macan Betawi, was made in 1978" be justified then, if nobody knows what the original story was? Eric   Corbett  00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the story of Si Ronda as it developed over time. It didn't stop being performed in lenong after this film was completed, after all. However, as I said above, lenong is a form of oral literature. No two performances are the same, although they still follow the same general formula (at least, over a limited period of time; stories can shift quite drastically over the years). The story of Si Ronda changed over the years and the retellings.
 * Take the case of Njai Dasima. Originally written by G. Francis in 1896, it was immediately popular and adapted into at least two syair by two different authors as well as the stage. As time passed and Njai Dasima became part of the oral literature of Batavia/Jakarta, the pro-European stance of Francis's original was overwritten by more pro-Betawi/pro-Sundanese forms (in which the Europeans became increasingly villainous). Ultimately, the 1970 film of the story (Samiun dan Dasima) had Dasima leave her master out of disgust for his orgies and other sexual deviances. It's still based on the same story, but reimagined to the point Francis would have gone mad had he seen it.
 * Sadly, we don't have an article on that work yet. However, if you need a reference regarding how these stories change from retelling to retelling, the article on Si Pitung does have some. Of particular note would be "In the lenong version, Pitung is described as a humble person, a good Muslim, a hero of Betawi people, and an upholder of justice. ... In Si Pitoeng, a 1931 film and the first produced about Pitung's life, he was shown as a real bandit. However, in the 1970 film of the same name, Pitung's characteristics were closer to the traditional Indonesian depictions." I can cite this information in a footnote here if necessary (discussion how stories would change over time and in different adaptations). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On a perhaps more direct note, I've reworked the lead to avoid implying that it is the film's story that was the basis for the 1978 adaptation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to keep harping on about this, but if it's possible to assert that "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung" then it must be possible to identify those similarities and thus at least an outline of the plot, even if it's just that the eponymous hero is regarded as a bandit by the authorities and that the film follows his exploits. You say in your nomination statement that the exact plot isn't known, which is fine, but what about a general plot outline, even if it's as rudimentary as I've suggested? Eric   Corbett  11:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To do so would mean turning to the lenong versions (of which I am not aware of any contemporary performances recorded, either in film, audio, or text) and/or using very general parallels (i.e. "stories of bandits and silat masters popular in Betawi folklore" or something similar; a very simple version is already in the text). I've worked the second one in. As illustrated by the case of the 1931 Pitoeng film, I doubt we can even safely say the character is a "hero" in the film. As I've explained below, this is less Oedipus Rex and more Little Red Riding Hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The story was selected because of its action sequences, which had generally been inspired by American works ...". I'm not quite following this. Is it saying that action sequences had generally been inspired by American works up until then, or that the action sequences in Si Ronda were inspired by American works?
 * Action sequences in the Indies, particularly in this time period, were modeled on what they saw in American works. Google has a snippet view, but my Indonesian edition of Sen (page 25 in this book) says (retranslated from Indonesian) "during this period, well-established and popular traditional art forms were fused with American action and cinematic techniques as a recipe for success". I've reworked to make this clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "... for instance, in 1929 the Wong brothers released Rampok Preanger". In what way is that an example of the increasing popularity of the silat genre?
 * I've reworked. It's meant to show that several films were being made in the genre (do you think I should add roughly what percentage of local production that was? It's a fairly significant number: 66% for 1929 [2/3], ~15% for 1930 [1/6], ~13% [1/7] for 1931, or 25% of all local films for the three year period; this would be referenced to Biran's list and simple maths as allowed by WP:CALC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the lead ought to be expanded by a sentence or two to include some of the new information you've discovered about the film's storyline.
 * I have tried to add the information without getting into too much detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll do for me. Eric   Corbett  13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article looks considerably better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric  Corbett  20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Short but sweet! Nicely put together, and no issues I can see. A plot would have been good, but if there is no reliable source that helps us provide one, then there isn't much we can do. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing, Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Further comment; Eric, Brian, While I share your desire to have more information about the plot, I think that without a reliable source that covers the subject a little more closely, if we try and outline this plot based on the original storyline, we run the risk of moving into OR or synthesis. I have in mind some modern examples, where the "based on" tag has meant little - The Italian Job really shouldn't be compared with The Italian Job (2003 film) and Fleming's Thunderball novel isn't too close to the Thunderball film, and even further away from Never Say Never Again – the films are supposed to be "based on" the same novel and are wildly different from both the source novel  and each other. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. And so much don't I agree that I would have opposed this article's promotion had Crisco not added the brief summary that he did earlier, which is all that I've been asking for for far too long. Eric   Corbett  17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My concern was that every possible avenue was followed in looking for and utilising relevant reliable sources. Crisco has responded to this concern, has added 100 words of material, and has convinced me that he has indeed done all that is reasonably possible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And my concern was that it was nonsensical to claim that this film had a similar story to other films without any idea whatsoever what that story was. But I'm satisfied now, although slightly disappointed at the unseemly rush to support an article that was clearly in need of some fine tuning. Eric   Corbett  20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the GA-promoted version of this article had a "Premise" section (here) which I had merged into the body before FAC because of previous objections to a 1 sentence section at Gagak Item FAC. That being said, I agree with Eric that the current wording gives a more useful idea of what the film may have been about (and I have no issues with this wording because it's clear we're talking about Si Ronda as a lenong performance). Again, thank you for the review, and for the necessary push in that direction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * I share Eric's concern expresssed above about the lack of any plot details. If the film was based on a "popular" stage play, surely there is some record of what the play was about?
 * As I've been trying to explain (although to be honest I could have been clearer), the stories of Si Ronda / Si Jampang / Si Pitung are not fixed stories as in the Western tradition, but rather templates (named after the central character) on which stories are built. Although Si Ronda is not mentioned explicitly here, it does illustrate the issue of why determining any more than what I've included in this article is problematic. Ronda could be a hero or a villain, depending on the story, just like Tjonat went from being a villain in the novel and film to a hero in subsequent stage versions. We shouldn't be comparing these stories with, say, Romeo and Juliet or Grease, which exist within a literate society and have more or less fixed plots, but rather the various versions of Snow White or Little Red Riding Hood, which are from an oral society and have a basic template which is filled in using a variety of aspects. I think the issue is the term "stage play", which apparently has stronger connotations with being "fixed" than I realised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The term silat should be explained in the lead – otherwise, most readers will immediately have to jump out of the article via the link, to find out what the film was about.
 * This is what confuses me. Eric questioned why this is italicised and not straight (which would presume this is a common term and would preclude a gloss), whereas you're asking me to gloss it. I lean more towards the latter than the former, however, so I'll gloss. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead uses the terms "film" and "movie". The later is perhaps informal, unencyclopedic?
 * I don't think it's informal, and if so a much lesser evil than "flick". That being said, I've reworked the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "Production" section, Njai Dasima should be identified as a film, again to avoid the necesssity of using the link to find this out.
 * I loathe writing the word film again in that paragraph. I've instead added "the company's" (i.e. Tan's Film, which is clearly a film company based on the name alone), which allows us to say it's a film version without actually using the word film again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A little more description required for "Momo"; presumabaly an actor, but male or female?
 * "Momo" says male to me, but the sources give nothing more than a name, and it's not a common name any more. Single names are common for Indonesians (Roekiah, Sukarno, etc.), and even more so in the 1920s, so there'd be no family name to add. Drove the Dutch mad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking through Doenia Film (15 March 1930, about Njai Dasima part 2) I've confirmed that Momo was a man. At a loss for a graceful way to include this in the running text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If we know his nationality he could be "an ...ian actor". If we don't, you've done all you can.
 * Ethnicity would be the question here, as this is 15 years too early for "Indonesian". He'd have probably been Sundanese, but no references for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The primary meaning of "titular" is "in name only", which doesn't fit here. The more general form is "title role".
 * Thanks, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Similar stories to Si Ronda include those of Si Jampang and Si Pitung". This should be "Si Ronda's"; also, were the other two also martial arts experts?
 * In all adaptations that I've seen, yes (also in sources). Apostrophe s added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The final paragraph of the Production section is out of sequence, since it gives pre-production, background information.
 * Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a misplaced "however" in the third paragraph of the "Release" section – it should be at the beginning of the sentence. The same sentence adds that a number of Japanese propaganda films survived; this seems to be a separate point, and I'm not quite sure of its relevance without a little more explanation.
 * However moved, and Japanese propaganda removed (those films came about 15 years later) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On a general point, there are a couple of possible overlinking issues: "black-and-white" and "silent film", in the context of a film article, are self-explanatory.
 * Removed B&W, although I'd rather keep silent film linked as that's a nice, comprehensive article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, I have experience of the problems associated with writing an article on a "disappeared" work of art or literature (see e.g. The Temple at Thatch) and can thus sympathise. In such cases it is necessary to leave no stone unturned in search of sources of relevant information. Are you certain that this has been done?
 * Have not found anything but the 1932 screening at Delpher.nl (a newspaper archive from the Netherlands which includes Dutch-language newspapers from the Indies), nothing in Doenia Film at the National Library of Indonesia (the magazine had coverage of other works, like Njai Dasima), nothing that I haven't already used in Google Books, and Biran and Said are both picked clean. Sadly I don't have Jstor access at home, but I'll ping RX to see if the two Gouda articles I found have anything new. To be honest, I'm surprised at just how little coverage there is; Njai Dasima and Si Tjonat are much better documented.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a single sentence from the Jstor sources; everything else was redundant to what we already had. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your comments, Brian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one more comment. The suffix "-esque", meaning "in the manner of", works in some cases but not others, and "Robin Hood-esque" is positively painful. I can't immediately think offhand of a suitable alternative ("Robin Hoodish or Robin Hoodian" are if anything worse). In the absence of something more elegant, it may be necessary to rephrase, eg. "a Robin Hood type of figure".   I don't think the "brilliant prose" criterion can accept "Robin Hood-esque". Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems Eric has already made the change you suggested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

'Support: I think you've done all you can, now. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of the input. The article looks considerably better and more accessible now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Brian (I know you may not have completed your review) or Nikki, could one of you do the source review honours when you get a chance? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness
 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
 * All abbreviated now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Said 1982: Worldcat suggests publisher name is one word
 * Typo on WorldCat's part (admittedly the space is very small in the publisher's logo, but it's there; the name is spaced in the foreword as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, one mistake found and corrected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


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