Talk:Ouw Peh Tjoa

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ouw Peh Tjoa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Crisco, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next hour or so, hopefully. Thanks in advance for the work on it -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "a named " -- a man named?

• D'oh. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "silat" -- might be worth a quick definition for non-Indonesian readers ("the martial art silat")

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• focussing-- would be "focusing" in American English, but I'm not sure about British English, which I assume is desired here

• Correct in BrE (example). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This plot is adapted from Filmindonesia.or.id" -- should this say something like "this plot summary"? I assume the plot itself wasn't derived from the source at the website. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right, fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor clarity/prose points above. Spotcheck of plot source shows no copyright issues; foreign-langauge sources accepted from experienced editor in good faith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects appear to be covered (briefly, but hey, it's a lost film)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Overall this looks like your usual excellent contribution--just a few tweaks I need your help with, above, and this is all set to go. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)