Wikipedia:Peer review/? (film)/archive1

? (film)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC soon and would like some outside opinions.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do, I'll try to get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * "However, the film protested by several Indonesian Muslim groups, including the Indonesian Ulema Council, Islamic Defenders Front, and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which disagreed with the pluralist message of the film." "Disagreed with" sounds pretty mild, did they just disagree or did they actively criticize the film?
 * Added "MUI had previously declared pluralism forbidden."


 * "and allows his staff time for prayers and a holiday during Eid ul-Fitr, the largest Muslim holiday." A little ambiguous, is it that he only allowed them time for prayers during Eid?
 * Clarified


 * "Meanwhile, Rika feels stressed because of the way her family and neighbours have treated her since she converted to Catholicism from Islam; she is also dealing with the competition between Surya and Doni (Glenn Fredly) for her affections." This feels a little wordy, is there a good way to tighten it?
 * How's this?


 * "Abi is feeling conflicted" Is there a better/more detailed way to say this than "conflicted"?
 * How's this?


 * "Soleh joins the Islamic group Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), enabling him to feel more confident" & "He eventually joins the Banser branch of the NU" A brief explanation about the nature of NU might be helpful. i.e. Are they a charity? An orchestra? A terrorist organization?
 * Thought Islamic group would be enough, but added "charitable"


 * "Eventually all are able to reconcile." Not sure you need this summary statement, it might be clear from the text earlier.
 * Hidden


 * "After the attack, Hendra reads the 99 Names of Allah and converts to Islam;" Is it clear from the movie why he did this? Or is it left to the viewer to figure out why?
 * Left to the viewer, although I think (OR territory) that he realised his father wanted him to. One of my friends said she thought he did it to get Menuk.


 * "Temat considered her character to have married Soleh instead of Hendra, despite loving the latter and not the former, because Soleh was Muslim." Also kinda wordy, any good way to tighten this? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to "According to Temat, Menuk married Soleh, whom she did not love, instead of Hendra because Soleh was Muslim."


 * Back again, sorry for taking so long.
 * "Although he hopes to be a movie star, he has only received bit parts and as such is financially desperate[4] and going through an existential crisis." I'd suggest rephrasing the second half here, maybe "his inability to secure more than bit parts provokes financial desperation and an existential crisis."?
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The film, his fourteenth, is one of several Islam-themed movies he has directed, after Ayat-Ayat Cinta (The Verses of Love; 2008) and Sang Pencerah (The Enlightener; 2009)." Did his previous Islam-themed films carry a similar message?
 * Added the genres. Short answer, no.


 * "Revalina S Temat" Should this be "Revalina S. Temat"?
 * Indonesian sources drop the period generally, but no biggie


 * Watch for repetition of "stated"
 * From six to two


 * "Sasono notes that a scene in which a Catholic priest is stabbed by two men on a motorcycle reflects a case in Bekasi, which became a national issue at the time" Might want to state the year instead of "at the time".
 * Will dig.


 * "Sasono noted that the Muslim majority shown in the film did not have their motives shown explicitly" shown repeated here.
 * First shown removed.


 * "had been seen by almost 100,000 people,[34] with another 50,000 seeing it by 17 April.[16] By mid-September ? had been seen by" Some repetition here, "seen... seeing... seen".
 * Trimmed the middle, changed a seen to watched


 * "According to Bramantyo, the film was also screened in Vancouver and Paris, receiving positive feedback." I'm not sure you need the in-text attribution here.
 * Can't find independent verification of Paris, all I could find is tweets for Vancouver. Just to be safe (a director could, theoretically, lie, right?)


 * "Frans Sartono, reviewing in the historically Catholic daily Kompas, found the film to be heavily didactic, but ultimately interesting because its social commentary was in the right context" This covers a lot of ground.
 * The "historically Catholic" may be dropped, although it is for context (see where they are coming from). Compare Republika's descriptor above.


 * "considered the film to have"
 * "Praised the"


 * I rephrased a bit in the reception section, better check my work there.
 * You mention that their decision to show the film was heavily criticised, any notable critics?
 * Added a footnote about the NU. Nobody of note that I could find, really.


 * "In an October 2011 interview, he stated that he was "bewildered" that the film was poorly received by Muslims." The irony is really substantial here, a film designed to "counter the portrayal of Islam as a "radical religion"" was poorly received by Muslims. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but its possible that many people didn't see the characters as people not living up to the standards of their own religion, but as representatives of Islam, Buddhism, and Catholicism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)