Wikipedia:Peer review/List of films of the Dutch East Indies/archive1

List of films of the Dutch East Indies
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's more or less ready for FLC but would like some ideas on how to clean up the table (perhaps combine the years, for example) and prose critiques.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * What do you mean by "combine the years"? – Lionel (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this:

Instead of:


 * When I merge the year in the list proper, it colours the wrong column. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And that bold thing looks terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That should fix the years. I suspect that the bolding of the column names is part of "wikitable." You could always use wiki markup {| ... |} . But I'd ask at the technical pump to make sure. If I recall correctly, sorting doesn't work when you combine cells in this manner. – Lionel (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll test it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Any further ideas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "recorded" is a bit confusing in the 1st sentence ... at first I thought it meant filmed or captured.  If  you are trying to say that the number 95 is just a guesstimate by the authorities, I would simply omit the word in the 1st sentence ("... 95 films were produced...") because it goes without saying in historical articles that new discoveries may cause data to get updated.    If you want to emphasize the estimate-ness, maybe reword to "95 films are known to have been produced ...".
 * Like the rewording, done.
 * Likewise " produced and released" seems a bit redundant. Why not just say "produced" in the lead.  If some were produced by not released, that kind of distinction can be explained later.
 * Done
 * "Over the next seven years ..." - That seems to be based on the 1926 year from the prior paragraph: I'd suggest not spanning paragraphs like that.  Just say "From 1926 to 1933" or similar.
 * Alright.
 * Gender issue? "Although Dutchmen like Heuveldorp ..." - Is there a more gender neutral term? Maybe just say Dutch filmmakers?
 * They were all men. Heuveldorp, Krugers, Balink, and Franken.
 * Date: " that all films from before 1950 are .." - Since the article is covering only up to 1945, that is a bit of a non-sequitur. But I cannot think of a way to improve it :-)
 * Well, having "all films from before 1945" would be misrepresenting the source. I think it's okay as "before 1950" is inclusive, allowing 1945 and lower.
 * Included? " Biran writes that several Japanese propaganda films .." - Are these propaganda films in the list below?  The way it is worded, it sounds like they are not in the list. If not in the list, why are they mentioned in the prose?
 * That ties in with "The majority of films produced during the occupation, until the country's independence in 1945, were short propaganda pieces.", which are so far not included as they were not feature films. Including it would be a piece of cake, however, if the question arises.
 * Bibliography: Is any author information available?   It would be best if each bibliographic item started with the author .. or at least the author's organization.  For instance, if all these synopses were written by an employee of the National Library, I would expect to see National Library as the author.   The web site title/name should follow the authors name.
 * That's not standard for web content published by an organisation (see FLs Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film and List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, or FA Ruma Maida)
 * Purple: If the only purpose of that color is to indicate that the year is approximate:  I would eliminate the color (and the cross) and just change the year column, e.g. "circa 1933"  or "1933 or 1934".  If you want to keep the purple, maybe duplicate the key down at the bottom of the table, because that is where I looked for a key.
 * Considering the size of the table, that's a good idea.
 * Wording: "However, this production declined .." - (1) The word "However" can be eliminated: this sentence does not contradict the prior sentence.  (2) "this production declined" should probably be "the rate of production declined .."
 * Done.
 * Overall, it looks fine. The table layout is okay, except for the purple issue.
 * Thanks for the review!


 * Comments': If you just want the year fields to be merged, you should be able to use "rowspan" easily enough; I tried it for 1929 and 1930 in this edit and it didn't appear to break anything, just have a look at that relevant oldid to see if it looks right to you too and you should then be able to apply it across the rest of the table if it does. 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the sorting with other rows that breaks it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hadn't seen that the first time. I had seen sortable tables only working with one column given rowspan properties; I had to stick to unsortable tables on a prior FLC to skirt that. I'm not sure what's at fault here though as there doesn't seem to be any other rowspan in use. You could apply rowspans and leave it as an unsortable table; or it might work to force just one of the problematic columns to be unsortable (like the refs column already is). Other than that, bashing the computer with a rock is the best I've got. GRAPPLE   X  05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)