Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drama dari Krakatau/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Drama dari Krakatau edit

Drama dari Krakatau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about explosions, magical statues, kidnappings, long lost siblings, lost kings, and inter-faith romance. Need I say more?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The criteria have well and truly been met with this article; not only that, but it is informative, educational, interesting and more importantly, a pleasure to read. I fully support its elevation to FA status. -- Cassianto Talk 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was a happy puppy at PR, and the work since then has improved it further. A great article! - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Although happy puppies have been congregating at Drmies talk page recently... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from another peer reviewer. My handful of small quibbles were dealt with there, and all is now absolutely as it should be, in my view. I knew nothing about vernacular Malay novels hitherto, but this article is not only informative: it is also interesting. A fine piece, plainly meeting the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the fine PR, Tim, and the support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Looking good but a few minor points from me:
  • 1929 link to 1929 in literature
  • "canon" needs to link to canon (fiction)
  • Re first one: I consider linking years to be overlinking, even if it's to something like 1929 in literature. I've never done it at the FA level. Canon is okay, I'll link that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, personal taste I guess.
  • "The book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon." Without the slightest explanation, this sentence seems strange; it could feasibly add such a sentence to every work outside of a canon, which is almost all of them. It's only once you reach the publication history that you understand its particular relevance. Perhaps just add "Owing to its being written in vernacular Malay, ..." or equivalent? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went with "As with other works of Chinese Malay literature, the book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon.", as not linking Chinese Malay literature in the lede was certainly an oversight. I should really get around to writing that article... I've got books... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's fine. Look forward to seeing that article, a literature aficionado and so keen to see any more related articles improved. With that in mind, can't find anything else to say about this, apart from that it's great and I Support. Hope the active volcano doesn't derail the FA nom! Take care, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! Doesn't look like it. *fingers crossed*. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - In an unexpected yet strangely appropriate turn, I may or may not have to leave this nomination suddenly owing to a volcanic eruption. Right now everything is safe, and I will likely be online and ready to reply to reviews, but if I don't reply within 48 hours I may have evacuated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - Apparently we're "only" getting ashfall from Kelud, so right now there is no need to worry. I'll be right here, perhaps even more so than usual as they are recommending not to go out on the street right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Krakatoa_eruption_lithograph.jpg: needs US PD tag, and should use creation rather than upload details in the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No significant problems, and it seems the least I can do when life is trying to imitate literature! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Crisco 1492, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions which I think will improve the article.

WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis. I feel the Plot, the Themes, and the Publication history and reception can be expanded a bit.

  • Major Point 1: Plot "centres around two families in 1920s Batam which are unknowingly tied together by siblings who were separated in 1883. The brother becomes a political figure, while the sister marries a Baduy priest-king. Ultimately these families are reunited by the wedding of their children, after which the priest sacrifices himself to calm a stirring Krakatoa." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 2: Writing "Inspired by Edward Bulwer-Lytton's 1834 novel The Last Days of Pompeii and the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, the sixteen-chapter book" & "First published as a serial in Kwee's magazine Panorama between 7 April and 22 December 1928, Drama dari Krakatau was written over a period of two months after the author was asked to prepare a "sensational" story for a film. Before the final instalment had been published, the novel had already been adapted for the stage." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 3: Themes "Although Kwee was known as a realist and researched the volcano before writing, Drama dari Krakatau is replete with mysticism. Thematic analyses have focused on the depiction of indigenous cultures by Kwee (himself ethnic Chinese), as well as geography and nationalism." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 4: Publication history and reception "As with other works of Chinese Malay literature, the book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)

Other suggestions:

  • I think the statement "Moelia, the son of the Regent of Rangkas Gombong and Assistant Wedana of Sindanglaut,[b] hears of a Baduy priest, Noesa Brama, who has established himself and his family on Mount Ciwalirang and begun curing the sick and injured" can be broken into simpler statements to make it easier to follow.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Crisco 1492, please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. By the way, I’m praying for your safety. All the very best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there, Seabuckthorn. Regarding the plot, when summarizing novels and films for the lede of an article I do not subscribe to the school of a paragraph for plot. Yes, the plot is the longest section in the article, but that does not mean it needs to be longer than a sentence or two in the lede (just the general idea of the plot). Three sentences is about what I gave Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (an FA) and longer than what I gave Ruma Maida (also an FA).
Point 3: The only point in this section not mentioned in the lede is that this was the first of several books about volcanic eruptions in Chinese Malay literature, which could possibly be added to the end of the first paragraph. I tend to avoid expanding on themes in the lede so as to a) not bloat the lede with unnecessary details and b) avoid misrepresenting writers' arguments through oversimplification.
Point 4: That section is actually summarized in various places in the lede, to help the flow. I.e. "1929 vernacular Malay novel" (year of publication as a novel), First published as a serial in Kwee's magazine Panorama between 7 April and 22 December 1928 (year and means of first publication), Before the final instalment had been published, the novel had already been adapted for the stage (stage), and the sentence you quote. That's all 3 paragraphs in the "Release and reception" section, summarized in the lede.
I've tried splitting that sentence as you mention. Thank you for your prayers. Luckily it's calmed down now. The sky is fairly clear and the air is much less dusty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review but no spotchecks: be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated, and why is njai italicized differently in the original and translated title? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All abbreviated now, I believe. In "De Njai: Moeder van Alle Volken: 'De Roos uit Tjikembang' en Andere Verhalen", njai is not italicised because it appears to have made its way into Dutch (i.e. become naturalized enough to not require italics, such as in this book's title), whereas it is still a foreign word in English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GabeMc edit

Lead
  • " was asked to prepare a "sensational" story for a film."
Are the quote marks around "sensational" scare quotes, or is this an actual one-word quote? If its the later, then per WP:LEADCITE you need to add in-line attribution.
  • "centres around two families in 1920s Batam which are unknowingly tied together by siblings who were separated in 1883."
"which are unknowingly" is non-restrictive, so it requires a comma to set it off of the surrounding text. I would substitute that for which.
Plot
  • "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years."
Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the appropriate conventions for this type of article, but this present tense narrative style strikes me as encyclopedic. Is this an accepted format for detailing plot lines in Wikipedia articles?
  • Unencyclopedic, do you mean? Present tense is the current standard for fictional narratives. See pretty much any film or novel FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I meant unencyclopedic. Well, you would know about this better than I, but I've never read a Wikipedia article that presented a plot-line in the voice of a present tense narrator. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said: I've never read a Wikipedia article that details the plot-line with the voice of a present tense narrator; I didn't say that they don't exist. Since I've never edited or written any articles that detail a plot-line I defer to you, your reviewers, and your numerous FAs. It just struck me as odd because instead of "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years", I expected something like: "The story is set in 1883, as Krakatoa verges on its first eruption in more than 200 years", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stfg, I can see that the guideline justifies use of present tense, but it does not seem to suggest that the plot-line should be summarized using the first person voice of a narrator. In fact, some passages suggest otherwise. E.g., "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by ... describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butting in here, since I'm looking at closing this nom if I get to walk through the list this evening (Sydney time), that MOS para you quote from, Gabe, also says "Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works". Further, I think that Crisco's language in the plot summary meets the FA criteria of engaging writing, probably more so than some of the alternative wording suggested. Anyway, since you've supported promotion of the nom, I'm gathering this isn't a deal-breaker for you in any case... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, the text-string that you quoted goes on to say: "nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style", but no; its definitely not a deal-breaker. I was just curious because, as I said, I've never before read a Wikipedia article that details a story as a first-person narrator, which still strikes me an inappropriate style for an encyclopedia. What part of the MOS suggests that first-person narration is an appropriate format for detailing plot-lines? I see where MOS:PLOT sanctions the use of present tense, but its a leap to assume that this applies to first-person narration, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how this is first person narration. No I's or we's, for one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, its not really first person, but it is narrative story-telling, IMO. Per WP:INUNIVERSE: "Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles." Isn't this exactly what I'm concerned about? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, what about "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis ... Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That same section also says "Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first four apply. Per WP:INUNIVERSE: "Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavor, A plot synopsis written like a historical account, Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography (placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation). For example, instead of writing: "Gandalf was a powerful wizard" write: "Gandalf is characterised (or described or cast) by Tolkien as a powerful wizard", Description of fictional places written like a geographical account; the same principles apply as for fictional characters." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ian Rose, per WP:INUNIVERSE: "The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." Isn't this exactly how Crisco has written the plot section? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) How, dare I ask, does "Fictography" apply? There are no biographies here. "Description of fictional places written like a geographical account;"? There's no "Mount Ciwalirang, the tallest mountain the land of x" or whatever. "Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavor," - So what are the next three sections about? "A plot synopsis written like a historical account" would imply past tense, not narrative present. Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
        • Its Fictography because of phrases like: "Upon returning home, Moelia realises that Noesa Brama must be the last male descendent of the Hindu kings of Pajajaran, and that both Retna Sari and her mother bear a striking resemblance to his own grandmother." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to see violations of this aspect of the MoS, check out character biographies that go something like "Itchy is an anthropomorphic mouse. He is blue and about 3 feet tall. His hobbies include killing his erstwhile friend, Scratchy, something which he does regularly. Itchy was born on 30 February 1981 and strangled his nana with his umbilical cord..."
      • Anyways, the current MOS clearly states that a) narrative present is the recommended tense and b) For single works the plot section need not be immediately placed in real world context, as it is implicitly understood to be part of that narrative. If you disagree with the MOS, please start a discussion to change it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) Where does the MoS clearly state that a narrative style is appropriate? 2) Where does the MoS clearly state that for single works the plot section need not be immediately placed in real world context? Per WP:Real world: "However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How am I "omitting real-world info"? Do you know of any sources I haven't used? Doubtful (though if you do please let me know, so that I can incorporate the information). I am assuming that our readers will understand that a section titled "Plot" is going to be about the fictional plot of a novel, without having it spoon-fed to them. The same as all other FAs on works of fiction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no real-world info in the plot-line section. Is there? Its written as though the fictional events and characters are real. Do any of the people mentioned in the plot section actually exist? Is there any acknowledgement in the plot section that the story is a work of fiction? Which text-string in the plot section refers to the real-world? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Conclusions: "When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind: The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective. Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction."(original emphasis) Unless I'm missing an important point here, the plot section is not MoS compliant, as its written without the distinction between real-world perspective versus "in-universe" perspective. Per WP:Real world: "However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • GabeMc commented at WP:WAF, asking about its interpretation, and I will comment here in this specific case: there are a few bad statements in the plot section - written for dramatic effect rather than clarity - but fixable. "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years" should be something more like "The novel begins in 1883, where Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years." (I assume this is the first part, but the point is there). "Forty-four years pass." should be "The novel then jumps to forty-five years later." (This is a major narrative jump, so should be called out, compared to "The following week,..." which is still running on the same narrative frame. That's all I see specifically there that helps ground the writing more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nothing major but would help a lot. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I will defer to the judgment of Ian and the other reviewers/delegates on this. Personally I think that it is redundant and disruptive to the narrative. The readers know this is a novel. They are not goldfish. They won't forget it in the 3 minutes it takes to finish the lede and plot. Repeating "novel" twice in the plot section is redundant and patronizing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • FWIW, as a fellow editor, as well as a delegate/coordinator, I have to agree with Crisco's response here, and find it a commonsense interpretation of the MOS plot summary guidelines for a single work (my only suggestion for the text, incidentally, would be to avoid the "activity/active" repetition in the last line of the summary if possible). With that in mind I think we should call time on this review -- thank you all very much for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, you don't have to use the word "novel". Just that the phrase "It is 1883..." or "45 years pass." is really clunky encyclopedic writing. The first line could be rewritten as "In 1883, Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years." For lack of a better word, it is removing the "dramatic flair" that "It is 1833..." has that may be appropriate in more compelling or emotional writing but not in neutral style for an encyclopdia. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Crisco, nobody is suggesting that readers will "forget [its a novel] in the 3 minutes it takes to finish the lede and plot." This is about encyclopedic writing, and the MoS suggests that fictive or in-universe style is not preferred over real world style. The way you've written the plot summary there is no indication that its a fiction. Masem is right to suggest that fixing this is a simple matter of adding one or two topic sentences to the section so that it is grounded in the real world, versus an abbreviated fiction story. Story telling style is not encyclopedic. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure comments: copied to talk page by SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
********** With all due respect, I disagree with Ian. When taken as a whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is quite clear in its strong prescription to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. E.g., "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded ... consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." This passage is from the first section in the guideline, then in Conclusions it states: "When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind: The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective; Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction". So while the language of MOS:PLOT seems to give all single works an exemption in this regard, I suggest that that contradiction should be fixed not followed. The avoidance of in-universe perspective is a central theme of the guideline, so what's the purpose of an exemption that apparently applies to all single works of fiction? Real world perspective is the rule not the exception, since the vast majority of fictional works are not part of a series. Why do we have the all encompassing directive of using real world perspective when writing about fictional works if this only applies to works that are part of a series? We should not write our MoS this way. Deferring to a delegate is often a wise course of action, but the delegates do not have override power in terms of the MoS, do they? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • As this canditature has closed, this isn't the place to continue the conversation: perhaps the article talk page would be a better venue? (And, for what it's worth, I find the plot here follows the path of the majority of book and film plots I've read on Wiki). - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Right you are, SchroCat. I hadn't noticed that Ian closed the nom; sorry, but to respond to your comment, 1) WP:OSE. 2) How many of these are FA?, and 3) Are you saying that WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world only apply to works in a series? Wouldn't that mean that most works are exempt from the MoS prescription to use real world perspective? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tjakra Amidjaja consoles her, and tells her that they will leave the village in two days."
There is a comma separating two verbs in a compound predicate.
  • Fair enough, although I consider it to better indicate the flow with a comma. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forty-four years pass."
This is an incomplete sentence that lacks a subject.
  • How does "Time passes" seem, GabeMc? --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see what you mean, Stfg. Maybe the tense makes it seem odd to me, but I guess it has a noun, a verb, and a subject, so its complete. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Noesa Brama accepts the proposal, but, after he discovers"
You should remove the extra comma after but.
  • I don't think this one is extraneous, as the clause starting "after he discovers" could be removed without changing the meaning all that much. It is but a time clarifier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's needed because if you remove but, it creates a comma splice: "Noesa Brama accepts the proposal, after he discovers", whereas if it was needed you should be able to remove but without wrecking the sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comma is most unusual, and imho poor, making the sentence unnecessarily choppy. You wouldn't write "John went to the movies, but, Mary stayed at home". The syntax might be viewed as "X, but Y" where X and Y can stand as grammatically complete sentences. In this case, sentence Y is "After he discovers that Retna Sari and Soerijati had not gone willingly with the men from Palembang, he expresses regret over the destruction of the statue." OK, that's just a theory, but my observation is that putting a comma after "but" in sentences like that is extremely rare in good writing. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworked the sentence in a way which avoids having the subordinate clause in commas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He weds Moelia and Retna Sari, and has them promise that their first son will be raised a Hindu and become king of the Baduy"
A comma is separating the two verbs in this compound predicate.
Themes
  • "were often understood to mean mainland China"
The verb understood should be followed by a gerund, not an infinitive.
  • Reference? Sources I've all looked at all say the infinitive is acceptable, and some books on grammar use "understood to" (example). For me, "understood as meaning" sounds completely wrong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is probably fine both ways depending on who you ask. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An adaptation of the novel was performed on stage before Kwee had completed writing it, as had happened to his earlier work Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang."
"as had happened to his earlier work" is awkward, and "completed writing it" seems like a double verb when a single would do. Consider: "As with his earlier work, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang, an adaptation of the novel was performed on stage before its completion", or similar.
  • Used your wording, although I've removed one of the commas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 28 March 1928 the Moon Opera"
A comma should follow this full date.
Very controversial for such a short phrase. It's needed when omitting it would create a garden-path sentence, but here it didn't. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:COMMA: "Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and also after the year (unless followed by other punctuation). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic." According to WP:DATEFORMAT: "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that not all manuals of style require such a comma (and even in respected newspapers such as The Guardian we can find examples of a comma not being used after a date in a sentence such as this). However, as this one issue comes up so often, it is much less of a headache to just change it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting a comma after a date opening a sentance is American usage (or journalistic, in the UK), which is why the MOS insists on it after the US date format is used. In formal or encyclopaedic British English–which it looks like this article is in–it's not used. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the MOS say that, SchroCat? MOS:COMMA (2nd bullet) mentions the use of the comma after the year in MDY format anywhere in a sentence, treating the year as parenthetical, and WP:DATEFORMAT also mentions that, but I haven't been able to find any statement relating it to engvar, and nothing about a date opening a sentence. --Stfg (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't cover it in the MOS, it is just good British punctuation use. As you point out above, the comma use is only suggested after the American M-D-Y format: there is nothing about using a comma after BrEng D-M-Y format because it shouldn't be there. (See here and here for explanation/confirmation). - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all for this discussion, although I think we might get a more solid consensus by, say, going to MOS:Punctuation and starting a discussion there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need to, Crisco 1492. This was a matter for clarification rather than a debate. --Stfg (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story for the performances was prepared by Kwee, and was abbreviated and simplified for the stage."
1) A comma is separating the two verbs in a compound predicate. 2) Did Kwee abbreviate and simplify it for the stage, because this is a bit vague/confusing. Consider: "Kwee prepared the story for the performances, abbreviating and simplifying it for the stage." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uncommonly for works of this period, Kwee attempts to centre the novel around indigenous people and present it from their perspective, "impersonating" these indigenous cultures through his narrative.[20]"
1) Is this a dangling modifier? The first clause seems to be about the work, but the subject of the sentence seems to be Kwee. 2) You have an unattributed quote in there. Who are you quoting with the word impersonating? Per Wikipedia:Quotations "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation." I think you have this issue with the one-word quote "sensational", which appears in the lead and the article body. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QUOTE gives "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote", implying that a single word need not by given in-text attribution. Changed the subject to "ethnic Chinese writers". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Its well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

  • Support One or two very minor things though. What is a priest-king? I find it a confusing term as I'm unsure what religion it would be initially in the lead. Isn't there an article linking to it or a better term? If not it might be worth adding a footnote to briefly explain, or adding "marries a Baduy priest-king, the last male descendent of the Hindu kings of Pajajaran" which you mention in the plot. Why the scare quotes around "impersonate". I think it would read better if you wrote that sentence entirely in your own words. "He was highly critical of contemporary writers who relied more on their fantasies than logic and reality.[10] Hoping to keep his story grounded in reality," -repetition of reality.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priest-king" would be a religious leader who is also political ruler of a certain people. Merriam-Webster gives "a sacerdotal ruler: one who rules as king by right of his priestly office functioning as vice-regent of a deity", which is a bit more specific. The term is fairly common on Google (200k hits), but somehow we don't have an article on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I think the gist of the idea gets through clearly, though.
"Impersonate" has scare quotes for two reasons. First, it is not a literal impersonation, but rather writing from their view point. Second, that is the term Budianta uses.
What sentence are you referring to with "I think it would read better if you wrote that sentence entirely in your own words."?
Edited. Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncommonly for works from this period, Kwee attempts to "impersonate" these other cultures and present them from their own point of view." Several things about this bother me. I'm not sure what cultures you're referring to, as above you just mention literature, and I'm really not sure what you mean by impersonate and what you mean by "present them from their own point of view". I thought you said that he didn't have major ethnic Chinese characters like others in the day? Might just be me and too early in the day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I think I've got you. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you're distinguishing between Malay Chinese and Chinese Malay and arguing that he imported characteristics which were uncommon in Malaysian writers at the time? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that he imported characteristics using indigenous characters which were uncommon among Malay Chinese writers at the time who tended to use Chinese main characters then? This isn't immediately clear, I think it could be reworded a little more clearly. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the text says "characters". As in, characters in a novel. Not characteristics. Essentially none of the characters in the novel were ethnic Chinese ("no Chinese characters in major roles"), whereas Kwee's contemporaries almost exclusively used ethnic Chinese characters in their novels. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how do you "imported characteristics using indigenous characters"???? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at it:

"Unlike many contemporary works by ethnic Chinese authors, Drama dari Krakatau features no Chinese characters in major roles; the only such characters are mentioned in passing, shopowners who provide emergency food supplies to the regent.[18] Historically, Malay-language works by ethnic Chinese authors centred around Chinese characters, to the point that terms such as tanah-air (homeland) were often understood to mean mainland China, rather than the Malay Archipelago or Dutch East Indies. Chinese Malay works which featured exclusively indigenous characters had only developed in the 1920s.[19] Uncommonly for works from this period, Kwee attempts to "impersonate" these indigenous cultures and present them from their own point of view.[20]"

I think what was confusing me is Historically, Malay-language works by ethnic Chinese authors centred around Chinese characters, and then you say Chinese Malay works which featured exclusively indigenous characters had only developed in the 1920s. By indigenous characters I gather you mean of the Dutch Indies (Indonesian). I get that but its what you say then that he's trying to "impersonate" those cultures as if they're foreign which seems odd given that they're native. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say by "impersonate", it doesn't seem right in the context to me although I gather it's a Budianta quote. I understand that he was ethnic Chinese and not indigenous, but if you'd written "Uncommonly for works of this period, Kwee attempts to centre the novel around indigenous people and present it from their perspective" I'd have immediately understood. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that the indigenous cultures were foreign (in the more general sense) to the ethnic Chinese in the Indies, at least in the early 20th century; notice how "homeland" was often understood as China, and not the Indies. The socio-political climate of the time had extensive divides between the Chinese, the Dutch, and the Native Indonesians (no longer enforced by law, but no less present). They all had their own spheres in which they moved, their own boundaries which set them apart from each other. Actually getting to know and respect Native tradition was a massive step forward for the time, although admittedly not as drastic as it would have been in 1900 (see Tjerita Oeij Se for the kind of story they could get away with in 1900).
By not using the word "impersonate" in this paragraph, the clause "the 'impersonation' presents a "region of theosophy where religious difference is unified in the belief of goodness." would not make sense. I'd rather keep the word, as it is succinct and easy to refer back to.
That being said, I like your sentence and see if it can be worked in — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I kinda understand that it was seen as foreign despite both being Indonesian though. Much clearer now, it is now quoted in a better context I think, thanks. Sorry to be so picky! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries. Hopefully this "nitpick" will help readers considerably. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Drama_dari_Krakatau/archive1&oldid=1086353853"