Wikipedia:Peer review/Terang Boelan/archive1

Terang Boelan
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 want an outside opinion on how to develop it/errors. It's a lost film, so the sources don't really touch on themes in the work.

Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I think you could probably split that lead into two paragraphs easily enough; right after "Balink's previous work Pareh (1936)." seems the logical point as that marks the end of in-production discussion and the start of after-release discussion.
 * Done.
 * I think it's worth noting that The Jungle Princess was a foreign film.
 * Done.
 * "The Indonesian film historian Misbach Yusa Biran notes that this gave the film stylistic and thematic similarities" -> either change "the film" to "both films (or something similar), or explicitly mention, after "similarities", The Jungle Princess (either by name or something like "to the earlier film").
 * Done.
 * "Scenes were shot in black and white" -> I could be wrong but I think "black-and-white" might be correct here instead (that's how I parse it but I'm hardly infallible). It's a compound term, as the footage was shot in «black and white» rather than in «black» and also «white». Look at me being all continental here   GRAPPLE   X  15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dur, yeah.
 * "The film was advertised as proving that the Indies were as beautiful as Hawaii" -> is there any relevance to Hawaii of all places? If it was the contemporary image of "beautiful island paradise" or whatever, this might warrant a brief mention (plus a few extra words could never hurt).
 * Clarified
 * "200,000 straits dollars" -> I get uneasy when I see obsolete currency in a vacuum. Could a source adjust this to something modern (I guess the rupiah would work for the article, or the ringgit for relevance to that particular market).
 * Not in any of the sources :-(. Know any converters?
 * "Terang Boelan was released in 1937, with both the Malay title and the Dutch title Het Eilan der Droomen;" -> I think you could just phrase this as "Terang Boelan was released in 1937; it was also marketed under the Dutch title Het Eilan der Droomen", or the like.
 * Done
 * "Mochtar and Roekiah became a popular screen beginning with the company's production Fatima" -> I assume this should be "screen couple" or the like, or did they project films on Mochtar's back? :P
 * Dur, yeah
 * Any word on how the film(s) came to be lost? I assumed the mention of nitrate film was foreshadowing (that stuff is terrifying).
 * Clarified. I don't doubt it is.


 * All in all I'm liking this one. I'm aware that the bot closed this review a few hours ago but sod it, a PR deserves some comments before being archived. GRAPPLE   X  15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WP Comments

Hey Crisco 1492. This is a really well written article. A few thoughts and some suggestions regarding tense:
 * I'm wondering if "several parts of" is necessary here, "hot in several parts of the Dutch East Indies and Singapore and targeted at native audiences, the film featured kroncong music and several actors from Balink's previous work Pareh (1936)."
 * Nixed


 * Comma does not look like it's needed in "Rohaya (Roekiah) is told to separate from her lover, Kasim (Rd. Mochtar) so that she can marry the disreputable Musa (E. T. Effendi)." If it is, then a comma after "Kasim (Rd. Mochtar)" is required too.
 * Doubled


 * "Kasim plays the song "Terang Boelan" for his love, and they agree to elope." - using "love" to refer to a romantic interest seems a bit informal.
 * Changed to Rohaya


 * "Rohaya and Mochtar make their escape from Sawoba Island to Malacca"
 * Done


 * "They discover that Kasim's old friend, Dullah (Kartolo), has also lived in Malacca for some time." - "also" here is redundant and reads just as nicely without the word.
 * Done


 * "...who had followed him", simple past is better?
 * Fair enough


 * "less of an ethnological approach" → "a less ethnological approach"?
 * Sound succinct?


 * Is present tense appropriate in these instances; I would assume since these are past writings past tense is the preferable choice—"Said also recognises such similarities...", "Heider considers Terang Boelan...", "Biran considers the film a turning point...", "Said concurs...", "The Filipino film historian and director Nick Deocampo notes...", "...but suggests that copies ...", "...American translator John H. McGlynn express hope..." and "Heider (1991, p. 14) writes that all Indonesian films"
 * At FAC it sometimes happens, but I guess the past tense could be preferable as Biran is deceased (and we need standardisation)


 * "Terang Boelan is now considered lost" - this cites a 1991 publication, so I'm thinking if the wording ("is now") is appropriate.
 * It's in a 2006 publication as well, but nixed "now"

Overall, the article is really good and interesting. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)