Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terang Boelan/archive1

Moved from the main page (the unsigned comments are mine). These issues have been addressed. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the lead ought to say more prominently that it's a lost film, rather than slipping it in the way it does now, because it's an interesting point.
 * Tried something. Interesting, yes, but sadly not at all common. The vast majority of Dutch East Indies films are lost, and I don't think I've heard of any are in ready viewing condition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I would say native Indonesians, rather than "native" (or express it some other way -- "native" on its own looks odd and unclear).
 * I have avoided using the word "Indonesian" when describing native Indonesians in this context as the film was made before Indonesia's independence (I did the same thing at 1740 Batavia massacre) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind changing it if necessary, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Change "formulaic nature of later films which followed Terang Boelan's formula."
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does "Terang Boelan" mean full moon (or bright moon?), and should we say which language near the beginning?
 * Literally bright moon, in Indonesian (now noted in the lede). It may mean the same in Old Malay, although I don't have a dictionary in that language on hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The plot talks about Rohaya and Kasim, but then Rohaya and Mochtar, the actor who played Kasim.
 * Dur, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would remove "however" from the start of the second plot paragraph; it's redundant. I'd also remove "actually" from that sentence as redundant too.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably mention the opium dealing when I first mention Musa: "the disreputable but rich Musa (E. T. Effendi), an opium dealer".
 * Based on the sources, this isn't revealed until midway through the film. If the villagers knew he dealt opium he'd be a lot more disreputable (to say the least). I've clarified this point — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kasim, having discovered Musa's deeds, returns to his hometown ..." That is Sawoba, yes? I would say "Sawoba too", otherwise it confuses the reader, especially when they start fighting.
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "As it looks as if he will lose the fight, he is saved ..." to "When it looks as though he will lose ..."
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies had been produced by The Teng Chun, based on Chinese mythology or martial arts;[1] this situation was an effect of the Great Depression and changing market trends." This is not clear at all. I would place the footnote in the text to clarify.
 * There's already one. I tried to make the implication clearer — Crisco 1492 (talk)
 * I meant could you bring the text in the footnote into the article. That part currently reads (with the footnote):
 * "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies had been produced by The Teng Chun. The low-budget yet popular films were based on Chinese mythology or martial arts. this situation was an effect of the Great Depression and changing market trends."
 * Footnote: "The Great Depression had led to the Dutch East Indies government collecting higher taxes, advertisers asking for more money, and cinemas selling tickets at lower prices; this ensured that there was a very low profit margin for local films. During this period cinemas in the colony mainly showed Hollywood productions."


 * I think the footnote would be better in the article, but also made clearer. Advertisers asking for more money isn't clear (advertisers normally pay). Or just say something like: "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies had been produced by The Teng Chun. The low-budget yet popular films were based on Chinese mythology or martial arts. For various reasons there was a very low profit margin for local films during the Great Depression, which meant that cinemas in the colony mostly showed Hollywood productions."


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get it. How's this? Reordered a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's better, but I wonder whether it's clear enough. See my point at the bottom of the page about making things very clear for readers who know nothing about this.


 * During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies had been produced by The Teng Chun. The low-budget yet popular films were based on Chinese mythology or martial arts.[1] This situation was an effect of the Great Depression and changing market trends; the Great Depression had led to the Dutch East Indies government collecting higher taxes, issues with advertisers, and cinemas selling tickets at lower prices, ensuring that there was a very low profit margin for local films. As such, during this period cinemas in the colony mainly showed Hollywood productions.[2]


 * (a) Is it clear enough why low-budget movies would be based on Chinese mythology or martial arts? (b) "This situation" -- which situation? (c) What kind of issues with advertisers (if you're not sure, I'd leave it out). (d) Still not entirely clear from the writing what is meant. The films by The Teng Chun; these are low-budget films based on Chinese mythology, and they are selling, they are popular, so were they not affected by the low cinema prices? Were they made overseas and therefore not affected by the higher taxes the Dutch East Indies govt was collecting? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * locally-produced -- no hyphen
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * fix "leaving The to dominate the industry..."
 * How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More later. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After the first mention of the names, consider adding their dates, e.g. Albert Balink (1906–1976). And I would say on first reference who they are if it matters; I would definitely say a few words about Balink on first reference. Otherwise the article is just a mass of names for the reader, with no reference points.
 * As most of these people (almost all, in fact) have articles, I don't think it would work very well. As for who they were, that's a good idea. Did something for Balink and left a hidden note for the Wongs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again fix "As opposed to The, who targeted his films ..." The "The" looks wrong to an English reader, so you'll need to work around that -- would it be wrong to use his full name each time?
 * For readability, I guess it's okay. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The chronology is unclear. Did the director announce that he was making the film, then look for the writer? (No, the timing doesn't work for that.) So had those other writers already written the story and screenplay? Or the first, but not the second?
 * The studio announced it, Saeroen seems to have already written the story/screenplay. I've tried to reorganise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sources conflict on whether Franken was involved" -- I would say "as to whether Franken was involved."
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Filming began by February 1937" --> "Filming had begun by February 1937".
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "with the Wongs on camera" -- is that the right expression? On-camera usually means in front of the camera. But maybe it's the term film people use in this context; if it is, that's fine.
 * Changed to a more unambiguous term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "as Mochtar was unable to perform ..." --> "because Mochtar was unable to perform ..."
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Marzuki also provided the film's music." Not really clear what this means tacked onto the end like that.
 * Clarified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * " it made its premier" -- needs a cap
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Posters also emphasised the use of Indonesian ..." Indonesian what?
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "1953's Krisis (Crisis)" -- I would say "Krisis (Crisis) in 1953.
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "released after Indonesia had become independent" --> "released after Indonesia became independent in [date]," (or won its independence in ...) to help the reader (if it's not already in the article, and glancing through it seems not to be).
 * Done. I could give a bit of an overview in a footnote like at List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies, but I don't think we need that much detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "immigrated to the United States" --> emigrated to, otherwise you seem to be writing from the perspective of the United States (as in "came here").
 * Dur, I think Malleus has told me about that before. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mochtar also married fellow Terang Boelan actress Soekarsih." What function does "also" have in this sentence?
 * Thinking again, it looks redundant. Removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * led to an "explosion" -- I would remove the scare quotes, or quotation marks, whatever they are -- it's a common word, and I assume this is not a contentious point. Or if you want to quote, say "Smith wrote that ..."
 * It was in scare quotes as it is idiomatic. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Before the film was released, local studios had generally been unsuccessful in finding a premise popular with audiences" -- a premise? Is that a formula?
 * Yeah, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "locally-produced films films released in the Indies" -- no hyphen, and remove repetition
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Say who Said is on first reference (full name at least).
 * Done (in #production)
 * This is a bit repetitive: " However, the repeated use of its formula has been criticised. The director Teguh Karya, for instance, was heavily critical of films which used the same formula as Terang Boelan without building on it."
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where you first mention nitrate film, perhaps you could briefly say something there about that being related to its being lost, because it's not clear on first mention what the significance is.
 * I'm not sure mentioning the film is lost in the production section is appropriate, but if consensus is that it is I could write "Terang Boelan was shot using highly flammable nitrate film, which may have been a factor in its later loss." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I would do, just to tie the two points together, but it's up to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * have survived in "attics" -- not clear why attics is in inverted commas.
 * My reading of their statement is that attics is representative of any place where few people go and a lot of stuff is stored (basements, etc.), hence the quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An attic is just a loft, so it looks odd in scare quotes. The source says "perhaps somewhere in an attic or closet." Perhaps say: " ... expressed hope that copies of the film have survived somewhere in Indonesia or the Netherlands" or "somewhere in people's homes in Indonesia or the Netherlands," in "in someone's home," or "may be lying around in someone's attic." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Will comment more later. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)