- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Serangan Fajar edit
... that the award winning Indonesian war film Serangan Fajar has been compared to the 1963 Hollywood film PT 109 in its social function?
- Reviewed: Illinois Central Railroad Freight Depot (Bloomington, Indiana)
- Comment: Note that it's misspelled Sarangan Fajar in the reference.
Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nom at 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- The blurb uses the correct spelling, it's the ref that's off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the phrase "in its social function" in this context: it's both vague and not fully supported in the article, which instead talks about both in terms of the "mild hagiography" of Suharto (and the source says PT 109 is "directly analogous" to the "retrospective rewriting" being done on Suharto's behalf, if I'm reading this correctly). Perhaps something along the lines of "in their 'mild hagiography' of their countries' leaders" would work, or "in reemphasizing the service of their countries' leaders"? (Probably needs further wordsmithing.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the award-winning Indonesian war film Serangan Fajar and the 1963 Hollywood film PT 109 have been compared for their "mild hagiography" of their countries' leaders?
- That's essentially social function here means, to praise the country's leadership for deeds which may or may not have been worth praise. Added alt — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added an ALT designation to the hook, and I think it works better, being more specific. I was wondering whether "for" might be better than "in"? I've added a hyphen to "award winning". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Approving ALT1 for use (supported by article and its inline sourcing); striking original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)