Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terang Boelan/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 15:40, 4 December 2012.

Terang Boelan

 * Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a short (but solid!) look at a film very few of our readers have ever heard of. Terang Boelan was the most commercially successful film produced and released in the Dutch East Indies, what is now Indonesia. Although its casting process didn't feature a car chase like Balink's earlier film Pareh, it did feature singing by future National Hero Ismail Marzuki. The film has been lost since the 1970s (at least) and as such the plot section is reliant on advertising material from the period, reprinted in two of the sources. I look forward to addressing any comments, and if passed this will likely be our first FA on an early non-Hollywood production. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. All the issues I raised have been addressed or explained, either below or now moved to the talk page, so I'm pleased to support this. It's well-written and interesting, and I enjoyed reading it. The only thing I should mention again is that I can't read the Indonesian-language sources, and they are the main sources (Biran, Said, Esha et al, and Anwar), but I'm happy to trust what Crisco says about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi Crisco, I enjoyed reading this. A few points:
 * (Note to delegates: some copy-editing comments that were here have been moved to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC))


 * Citations: Citation style is consistent so far as I can see, except that Foreign Exchange, NYT doesn't have its date in brackets, but the others do. Personally I'm not keen on multiple footnotes after sentences, or footnotes inside sentences, because it makes the text untidy. It's up to you what citation style you use, but maybe you would consider bundling some citations, esp when there are three in a row, or moving some footnotes to the end of sentences.
 * Hmm, I'll merge them. All the references use the cite family of templates, so any differences are intrinsic to said templates (the NYT source uses cite news, while the others are cite book and cite journal). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merger completed, now no sentence has double footnotes — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks a lot better, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources: I can't check Biran, the most widely used source, because it's in Indonesian, as are Said, Esha et al, and Anwar. The other sources seem fine: Van der Heide expresses the confluence-of-influence issue well on p. 128; I wonder if the article could make that point more clearly. Foreign Exchange, NYT is a dead link.
 * The NYT FX link is working for me, it's just a subscription-required link. I'll double check Van der Heide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I get "Page Removed. We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Perhaps it's area specific? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be. It's a minor issue (the exchange rate) anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence clarifying the "indigenisation" concept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Images: Could use some alt text; alt=photograph, or alt=poster, is fine. The main image, File:Terang Boelan p311.jpg -- the copyright issue looks fine to me. It's one of those claims of PD that relies on it having been PD elsewhere at a particular time, and they are complex. Crisco, I see you've discussed it here on Commons. The second image, File:A Wong Brother KR 30 April 1947.jpg, would look better inside one of the sections, rather than straddling them. I can't tell whether it's PD; it was first published in 1947, so again it's complex. The third image, File:Siti Akbari postcard 1.jpg, I would have claimed fair use for, but it may indeed be PD according to the rules cited on the page, I don't know. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the PD-ness. It's like Poland: copyright protection was extended after the URAA, meaning that it stayed PD in the US. I agree that copyright in these situations is complex. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem familiar with these rules, so it's fine as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead: Some concerns about how clear this would be to someone with no knowledge of the geography and history. The lead doesn't say what language "Terange Bolean" is. It doesn't give the nationalities of the people mentioned. It says it was shot in the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, was aimed at native audiences (native linked to native Indonesians, but not explained in the text), and that it earned a certain amount in British Malaya. This revived the film industry in the colony (British Malaya?), and inspired native-oriented movies there (the same "native" referent as above?). Is there a way of writing this without making the reader work hard to follow where it's all happening, but without being so detailed that the lead gets bogged down? I added a suggested edit here (and reverted myself), but it still left a few things unclear that I wasn't sure I could explain properly without introducing errors.


 * Generally, I think it would help if you could go through the article and try to read it through the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about this. For example, "Biran considered the film a turning point in the history of Indonesian cinema, showing the possibilities of the medium ...". Why was it a turning point, which possibilities did it show to whom (other filmmakers, audiences?), and in what ways did it achieve that, as opposed to Pareh, i.e. what exactly was special about this film? If you could go through the article checking for issues like that, I think it would help. None of the sentences or paragraphs should leave attentive, but uninformed, readers puzzled. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and do that but, regarding your example, there are a couple issues. First, we have articles on most of the major figures behind this film (Balink, the Wongs, Franken, Saeroen [fl. beginning in the 1920s, not born, btw], Mochtar, Roekiah...) so birth and death dates are not necessary for most readers. Those who are interested could easily click through. Secondly, I am not sure conflating Indonesia's independence with Singapore works as Singapore likely would never have been included in the country. Third, I'm not sure of the value of indicating what language Terang Boelan comes from, as it can be made implicit by saying that it is from the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia); none of our current FAs on Indonesian films say that the title is Indonesian. Much of the wording is nice, however, and I'll add it.
 * Here are my changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's good. The only thing there I'm not keen on is "However, complaints have been targeted at the later films which followed Terang Boelan's formula without modification." It sticks out as a little disjointed. First, it's not about the film, I don't think complaints are targeted at things, and "without modification" could be expressed differently. I think the sentence should be removed, or rewritten and filled out a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. I considered replacing it with the fact that the industry grew rapidly afterwards, but we already have that earlier in the paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think each article should stand alone as a summary of the topic, rather than relying on readers to click through, which most won't. Regarding birth and death dates, it's standard in encyclopaedia articles to do that on first reference (for the deceased, anyway; I don't know whether it's also done for the living -- I would have to check). It's up to you, and no one can insist on it, but it does help the uninformed reader to orient herself -- otherwise it's just a mass of names (Smith did this, Jones did that, McDonald did the next), and when the names are not English ones it's even harder for an English speaker to keep track). Anything that helps the reader to pinpoint the name and remember it when it next appears (dates, description) is good. But I won't go on about it; it's up to you. I would say you do need to say which language Terang Boelan is in; nothing is implicit for a reader who's not familiar with that region. You give the literal translation in English, but you don't say which language it's translated from, and that sticks out as an omission. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... "Indonesian for Bright Moon"? (drop the literally)


 * Yes, that's good. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the issues we're facing here is that the sources expect a certain level of familiarity from the readers, thus allowing them to draw conclusions for themselves. To the best of my recollection, Biran does not explicitly state why The chose action and mythological films (it's implied that he worked with what he knew, one, that his films were targeted at Chinese audiences [who also wanted what they knew], two, and that both genres could be worked with fairly cheaply). Because of our policy against original research, explicitly stating what is left between the lines in the sources is a Catch-22: without such statements readers may lack knowledge to understand the issue as well as they could, but with such statements the article would fall afoul of the policy.
 * I could give a bit more about Pareh, for example, which can be supported by sources. However, I think it's a little tangential to talk about the casting difficulties that production faced. Its budget and that The Teng Chun targeted native audiences afterwards may be useful. I've tried to define the key terms which may not be clicked through, like "keroncong (traditional music with Portuguese influences)" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I take the point about OR; yes, I've come up against the same issue. It can sometimes we worked out. For example, some sentences can be written so that there's no suggestion of a gap in understanding, e.g. "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies were produced by The Teng Chun, who focused on low-budget, but popular, films based on Chinese mythology or martial arts." That makes it clearer that this is just what he did (forget why). But next sentence: "This situation ..." makes it sounds as though he was doing this (focusing on Chinese mythology) because of the Great Depression. So you need to go through the article looking for things like that -- gaps in understanding, or wording that gives the impression of a gap where there isn't one. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope my recent edits could have addressed the issues of the background. I'm going to campus now, so I'll continue working on this later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's excellent. Now it's very clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified some of it and left notes for further developments when I get home. I may be blind to further things which are unclear to those without background knowledge (admittedly common in academia) so I would appreciate any further suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Got those notes I made earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Tweaks:


 * Better to say the film targeted, or was aimed at, not was targeted at. "Was aimed at" is best.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful with "... Terang Boelan was partially inspired by the 1936 Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. The film, shot in the Indies and Singapore ..." Sounds like Jungle Princess was shot in ...
 * Reworded — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." (instead of semi-colon)
 * Changed to a period. Both are stand-alone clauses, so I don't think a comma would be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The way you've done it is fine: " This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya. Several of the films which followed stuck closely to ..." But a comma and "several of which" would be fine too: "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reordered again. I avoided saying "several of which" as I was worried it would be understood to mean that the films in the Indies did not follow the formula, but those in Malaya did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. I like the way you've done it now. Suggestion: "... romance which was followed for decades afterwards" is fine, but "romance that was followed for decades afterwards" would be better. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like your suggestion included that, so done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can the turning point issue being clarified? (I assume it's that a film industry emerged after this film, but it's not 100 percent clear.)
 * Having double checked the source, it appears he is referring to boom in productions following Terang Boelan. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you wrote is good, but needs a tweak: "catalytic effect on ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * " though targeted at ethnic Chinese" --> although aimed at ethnic Chinese
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "As such, during this period cinemas ..." --> As a result, during this period ... And actually I would lose "during this period" because it's implied.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Teng Chun was only able to continue his work as his films often played to full theatres" --> "The Teng Chun was able to continue his work only because his films often played to full theatres."
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The film cost several times as much as a regular local production ..." Do we know why?
 * It's explained in more detail at the Pareh article. Gave a much shorter version here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The film cost several times as much as a regular local production, owing in part to Balink's perfectionism ..." I would say "in part because of Balink's" SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "... Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies only through European eyes, which native audiences considered a large fault." Not wrong, but could use a tweak. "... which its native audience did not appreciate," "which did not go down well with its native audience," or something like that.
 * SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not could not (who knows whether they could) but did not -- "which native audiences did not appreciate." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead again: copyediting has produced a repetitive structure: "Starring Rd. Mochtar ..., it followed .... Written by Saeroen ..., Terang Boelan was partially inspired ... Shot in the Indies and Singapore, Terang Boelan was aimed at ..." It could use some tweaking to smooth out the flow. Sorry if I'm torturing you. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a suggestion, which I think is a bit smoother. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the lead still confusing regarding place names? We have that Terang Boelan is Indonesian for Bright Moon, that the film was shot in the Indies and Singapore, and that by native audience we mean native Indonesians. Then we have that it was a commercial success in British Malaya, that it revived the industry in the Indies, inspired movies in Malaya, and the infobox says the film's language was Malay. Is there a way to smooth this out so readers don't have to click around? Even a map in the background section might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We also note on the first instance of "Dutch East Indies" that it is what is now Indonesia. I added another bit of clarification after the commercial success bit. I've also changed the infobox to say Indonesian, which is how the film was advertised and how the Indonesians referred the language. Whether it was truly a separate language by then is something for the linguists to argue. Oh yeah, changed the second native to "Malay" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Crisco, I've moved some of the early copy-editing comments to the talk page to reduce clutter, but feel free to move them back if you prefer to keep them here. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "... because Mochtar was unable to perform, the musician Ismail Marzuki – who also composed the film's score – sang while Mochtar lip synced." Mochtar didn't have a good singing voice, or something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to "because Mochtar's voice was ill-suited to the task," to make it clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's clear now. SlimVirgin (talk)


 * I posted some suggestions for the Background section, the Release and reception section, and the Legacy section.
 * I have reviewed these changes and reverted some. My rationale follows:
 * "go down well" is rather idiomatic and non-formal. I've replaced it with a third option
 * Kota, Jakarta, is the old Batavia, as in several hundred years ago. By the time Terang Boelan was released Batavia had expanded to, at the very least, what is now Gambir.
 * The source doesn't support that he was angered, instead it states "sangat kecewa" ("very disappointed"). I've changed it to the latter.
 * Otherwise they are all peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Works cited: Minor thing -- you start with the author where there is one, and the title where there isn't. You might want to consider starting with the publisher where there's no author. So The New York Times would be under N, or under T if you prefer, rather than under F for "foreign exchange": The New York Times (8 June 1938). "Foreign Exchange" (subscription required). That's just a suggestion. I do think it's a bigger issue (in terms of consistency) that you sometimes don't have the date in brackets. Can you use a template throughout that writes the dates the same way? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think any templates are available that put the publisher first. Even in my offline work I keep the titles first. I've tried to get the NYT source to have the date in brackets using several different templates, but it's all failed so far


 * Okay about the titles first; that's a preference issue. As for dates, I don't use templates, but I thought the newspaper templates put dates in brackets. Perhaps not. If there's no way round it, it can't be helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim Fascinating article about a subject about which I know nothing. A few tiny nitpicks before I support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rd Mochtar &mdash; not sure why he's not given his full first name here, or why the initial should be "Rd" rather than just "R"
 * "Raden" is actually a Javanese honourific, not a given name. His given name was simply Mochtar. He was generally credited as Rd Mochtar, which is why the article is there and why his name is written as such (Rd Ariffien, as mentioned in Berdjoang, is another example). If you think it confuses the issue, I'll be glad to drop the Rd or add a footnote explaining this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. &mdash; I'd put a comma after film, but ignore if you prefer as is
 * I'll take the second choice there. It reads more easily without the comma IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Kasim (Rd. Mochtar), and  revealed to be an opium dealer, &mdash; not sure that we need the wikilinks so soon after the first mention in the lead, especially as neither is an obscure technical term
 * Regarding the name link, it appears to be common in film FAs (compare Ruma Maida and ?, or Manhunter for one not by me); I think it has something to do with the practice of applying WP:LINK to the lead and body separately. Agree about opium, so I've removed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * director The Teng Chun. &mdash; I'd put a comma after director, but ignore if you prefer as is
 * Per point #2. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * as a regular local production, &mdash; The article seems to be in BE, usage of "regular" here is more like AE
 * How's "as usual for a local production"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Franken opened the Batavia- (now Jakarta-) based Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF).  &mdash; clunky, what about Franken opened the Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF) in Batavia, (now Jakarta). 
 * Agree, done (with a few minor typographical changes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hawaii &mdash; link? It's not a country
 * Fair enough, although OhConfucius' tool delinks it automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and I'm glad you found the subject interesting. I think I got all of your points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to support above now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support : I reviewed this article at GA, where it already looked good. A fascinating article, as usual. Although my subject knowledge is growing with each of these articles, I'm still extremely unknowledgeable on the topic so my (minor) comments are mainly limited to prose, where there are a couple of clunky parts. But excellent work overall, and this explains the subject (and its background) extremely well. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "This revived the faltering domestic film industry…": "This" is slightly ambiguous. Was it the success which caused the revival or the amount of money earned?
 * Yep, added "success" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "inspired films targeted towards Malay audiences": Not sure about targeted towards; what about "inspired films which targeted…"?
 * Looks like SlimVirgin got this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "He then begins fighting with Musa. When it looks as if he will lose the fight, he is saved by Dullah, who had followed him back to Sawoba.": This limps along a bit, particularly the first part, where "then" and "with" seem superfluous. And repetition of "fight" in the second sentence.
 * I trimmed a bit, although I'm not too sure about this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As written, the plot section seems to suggest that the villagers just spontaneously changed their minds. What convinced them? The fight? Kasim's words? Dullah's arrival?
 * He tells them of Musa's dealings in opium, which is haraam. Added "to his side" after "rallies the villagers". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "His low-budget yet popular films were mostly based on Chinese mythology or martial arts…": Not sure about this phrasing. Perhaps: "Many of his low-budget yet popular films were based on…" or "His low budget but popular films were mainly inspired by…"
 * The second one is nice. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)


 * "As a result, cinemas in the colony mainly showed Hollywood productions, while the domestic industry nearly died out…": Perhaps "and the domestic industry declined/decayed/suffered"
 * Decayed sounds good — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The film cost several times as much as usual for a local production": Can we be more precise here? And maybe "several times more than an average local production".
 * It cost 75,000 gulden, although Biran doesn't give a figure for the "average" domestic production. I chose this rather than a specific number because it makes the point much more much more succinctly: the price was astronomical for the time, hence why those involved were bankrupted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Indonesian writer and cultural critic Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies through European eyes, which was poorly received by its native audiences": Maybe "…wrote that native audiences were unhappy that, in their view, Pareh examined the native population of the Indies through European eyes." But there is a rather uncomfortable "native … native" but I can't find a better way to phrase it.
 * Changed to "had performed poorly with native audiences as it was seen as looking at them through European eyes," which avoids the native ... native issue — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think "as it was seen" is a little convoluted, but not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "and resulted in a less ethnological approach.": This is rather ambiguous.
 * Added "attempting to show them not from a European perspective but as they viewed themselves" to the sentence just before that


 * "The cast of Terang Boelan mostly consisted of actors who had appeared in Pareh": Perhaps "mainly" rather than "mostly"
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Terang Boelan made its premier in 1937…": Maybe just "premiered"?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "or the application of a national understanding of borrowed concepts": While I understand the thrust of this, I'm not sure about "national understanding" here.
 * D'oh, that should be "to", not "of". How's "sensibilities"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "both in the Indies and internationally": Based on the information here, internationally is stretching it. Only one other place is mentioned, and internationally suggests worldwide.
 * Made more specific. I haven't found evidence of release outside Malaya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "one of the studio's cameramen, an Indo man named Steffens,[c] suggested that ANIF's management preferred works of non-fiction as a more intellectual medium": What makes this cameraman an authority, particularly if his first name is unknown?
 * I found his initials (not much more help, sadly) and the direct source: Steffens, who worked for the company around the time, was interviewed (possibly by Biran, although he doesn't indicate this) in 1973. I'm assuming Steffens was chosen as, at the time, many of those involved had become untraceable; the actual backers do not seem to have been available. If you think Steffens' opinions are not valid, I'll comment them out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's OK if that is all there is. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "led to an exponential increase": Literally?
 * 1937: 2 films, 1938: 3 films, 1939: 5 films, 1940: 14 films, 1941: 30 films. "Drastic" or "dramatic" increase, at the very least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "but suggested that copies of the film may have survived until the 1970s.": Does he give any evidence for this opinion?
 * The preview cuts off before he can go in further detail, if any. Perhaps outside of Indonesia this has more of a preview? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No such luck! I can't see it either. A pity, and worth including if anyone can ever get hold of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (I think I raised something similar at GA) I'm assuming that this article includes everything that is available, but just for form's sake, some last questions (to which you can answer: sorry, nothing in the sources!): Any dates/details on filming? Any critical commentary on the actual film (rather than its influence or significance)? Why was it so popular (we say why other films failed; why did this one succeed?)? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing further indicated in the sources, except that the formula went over particularly well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: A thorough, impressive piece of work. More than happy to support now. (NB: I also reviewed at GA, where I did a limited spot-check of sources, which were fine). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this one during its peer review, was quite happy with it it then and the subsequent GA process and above comments have only improved it further. As side notes, previews for the elusive source above don't work in Ireland either; and I'm an active member of WP:FILM, the scope of which includes this article. GRAPPLE   X  22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Grapple (I should probably formally join the project, eh? This will make four five film FAs if passed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments :
 * I'd just like to point out that you use "the" when introducing people in instances like "the American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" and "the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." Is it necessary? I'm asking this because it makes the wording sound a bit clunky. Simply "...had been made by American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" sounds smoother, although you are free to disagree.
 * That has been my style in (almost?) all my solo FACs so far, be they film or other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "...also returns to his Sawoba and rallies the villagers to his side by telling them of Musa's opium dealings." – why "his Sawoba"?
 * Dur, that's left over from "his hometown". Good catch! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "In an attempt to show that locally produced, well-made films could be profitable, the Dutch journalist Albert Balink, who had no formal film experience,[4] produced Pareh (Rice) in 1935, working with the ethnic Chinese filmmakers the Wong brothers (Othniel and Joshua) and the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." – instead of breaking the sentence up, maybe a nicer-flowing "...produced Pareh (Rice) in 1995 in collaboration with..." perhaps? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds okay, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the responses. Great work on the article. It was an enjoyable read. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Penguin! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Also, see WP:NONENG (the section about providing the supporting text and a translation in the footnote). Something like a 20-fold increase in cost (which is quite a bit more than "several") is likely to raise eyebrows, so providing the text and translation above in the footnote would probably be indicated. That's good practice for anything that might surprise a reader who doesn't speak the language. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief look from SandyGeorgia;
 * 1) I see the query above from Sarastro1 about the use of "exponential" (increase), and the response; I continue to question the use of the term.  The author's response amounts to original research; how do the sources characterize the increase?  If they don't call it anything, we shouldn't be characterizing it at all, much less with such a dramatic term (original research), and in a way that readers are likely to have the same reaction that Sarastro1 and I had (since nothing is provided to back that up, and the claim raises eyebrows).  Please provide a direct quote from the sources to justify that adjective-- or any adjective. An alternative would just be to drop the original research adjective and give the numbers as you did in the response above.
 * As this point has been raised several times I've trimmed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote, if you think the article's better with an adjective, is "... pada tahun 1938 film Terang Boelan tiba-tiba membuat ledakan. Dunia film telah menemukan resep yang bisa digemari oleh setiap penonton. Pembuatan film mendadak ramai dilakukan dengan menggunakan resep Terang Boelan." (Biran, p. 25) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing exponential; if we are to use an adjective, please translate the quote to English. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "... in 1938 the film Terang Boelan suddenly caused an explosion. The film industry had found a recipe which could be well received by every viewer. The industry suddenly became filled (also, crowded) with productions following Terang Boelan recipe." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "explosive" for the adjective then? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, but I would probably put it in scare quotes as it is being used figuratively. However, earlier SV disagreed with the scare quotes (the discussion is on the talk page now, I think) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) See WP:RED-- are our articles on Indonesian topics really so well developed that this article has no red links?  For example, why isn't Pemandangan redlinked?  There are others.  Anything that meets notability and could be an article should be redlinked.
 * WP:REDLINK states that we should only create redlinks to "articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." There are several terms that could be redlinked, including E. T. Effendi, Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, Pemandangan, Salim Said, and Fatima. However, they should not be linked as none of them fulfill the automatic notability criteria, I currently have no intention on creating them (not to say I won't, it's always possible), and they are not quite "technical terms". This thus fulfills the current guidelines, although I won't force the issue if you insist on redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The newspaper does not meet notability? How long was it in publication?  Is it still in publication?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It may meet notability, but notability is not guaranteed. It closed in 1942, thus finding sources would be a pickle (haven't found when it opened). Those which I am fairly certain could support articles (although they are not inherently notable) are ANIF (although most of my sources discussing the company focus on Balink), Sallim Said (although right now I only have his biography in his books; his family name makes finding sources a nightmare), and Fatima (for reasons implied in the current Terang Boelan article). E. T. Effendi might, as he acted in six films and directed one, but I've yet to find any biographical information on him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, seeing things in the article that were raised above ... "The film cost several times as much as an average local production,".  The answer given above seems to be original research; please provide an exact quote from the source.
 * "Anggaran f 75.000 itu hampir 20 kali anggaran film yang wajar masa itu." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You altered the text from "several times" to "20 times", which is quite a difference. Please translate the quote to English so we can know what the source says.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The film's budget of f. 75,000 was almost 20 times that common for films of the time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your points above. Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; in the future, I prefer responses below my numbered points so we don't end up with hanging sigs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the quote as you've suggested, although I'm not sure on the formatting. Template:Sfn does not give a suggestion for multiple lines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


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