Talk:Gagak Item

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

On it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Made just one tweak; please feel free to revert if you disagree.

More:

• " the H. Dumas' musical troupe Lief Java" -- seems like this should be either "H. Dumas' musical troupe" or "the H. Dumas musical troupe"?

• You're right, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "was premiered" -- I'm never sure on this usage, but would it be better to say simply "Gagak Item premiered"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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.	Tiny questions above. Sources are largely not accessible (or in Dutch) but accepted 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.	Brief, but that's understandable for 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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page comments

Per Crisco's request:

Lede

• Can nothing be said in the lede about the film's genre in general terms?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Body
• I would either expand or merge the premise section. It is too short to stand on its own. I take it this is one where even the plot is lost?

• I have not had any luck with the plot in any of the old newspapers. I did have luck with Kedok Ketawa (and was pleasantly surprised too), but none here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "titular 'Gagak Item'" Not quite sure what you mean here.

• Changed to "bandit" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can anything be gained by consulting a copy of the novelization or not? Assuming it is findable, that is.

• I looked on WorldCat and did not find anything with "Gagak Item" or "Gagak" and "Tan's"; it may not be extant. Misbach doesn't give much information, only the publisher (which I've added) and "The books which were published included Gagak Item, Siti Akbari, and Sorga Katoedjoe." (I have a copy of the latter; novelisations from Kolff-Buning at WorldCat). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you've done a lot given how few details seem to be extant. Obviously, any further detail would be good, but if there's only a few around, what can you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This looks good. It is very short, but I think it is comprehensive, detailed and interesting enough to be a FA. Some may object on the "too short" grounds (and there is probably a theoertical lower limit to FA length) but for me, the coverage is deep enough and it seems to cover the material well so I don't have a problem. But as it is so short, I think what is there needs to be perfect, so here are some nit-picks!

• "The black-and-white film, which reused the cast and crew from the 1937 hit Terang Boelan (Full Moon)": I don't think a film can re-use anything. Perhaps "featured"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "was a fair commercial success": How are we defining "fair"? Seems a bit woolly.

• Nixed "fair"; was meant to indicate "not that big, but not unsuccessful" as Fatima and Terang Boelan were much bigger successes (although we don't have solid figures for Gagak Item. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Saeroen, a journalist turned screenwriter for Terang Boelan and Fatima": Should this be "journalist-turned-screenwriter"?

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "had first worked together on Albert Balink's 1937 blockbuster Terang Boelan (Full Moon), before joining Tan's in 1938": My reading of this would be "...before joining Tan's [blockbuster]" as a blockbuster is the last thing they worked on.

• So do you think Tan's Film should be written explicitly? (We're lucky The Teng Chun didn't have a role here... his family name was "The") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that would be better. (And I remember struggling with The on that one!) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The film, a love story, follows a girl and a masked man known as "Gagak Item" ("Black Raven") and was set in rural Buitenzorg": Mixed tenses here (follows...was set)

• Fixed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the titular bandit was similar to Zorro, a character popular in the Indies at the time, similar bandits had been a staple of travelling theatre troupes beginning in the early 1930s.": Bandit ... bandits.

• Figures? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Better now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The film had six songs, performed by H. Dumas' musical troupe Lief Java featuring vocals by Annie Landauw": Something a little off here; a comma needed after Java? Otherwise we have a musical troupe which features vocals.

• Added "and" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item was released in late 1939 and saw screenings": I never like "saw" in this sense: what did the film see?? But feel free to ignore my increasingly insane rants on this one.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Some screenings of the film, also advertised under the Dutch title De Zwarte Raaf, had Dutch-language subtitles.": While this is probably obvious to most people, there may be someone who wonders why (assuming they miss the whole Dutch East Indies thing.

• Added a note (although I sincerely hope most people would get it, considering we've also mentioned Buitenzorg above) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "A novelisation of the film, published by the Yogyakarta-based Kolff-Buning, followed soon after": It can't follow before, so perhaps "soon followed".

• Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item was one of four domestically produced films released": Perhaps "domestically-produced films"?

• domestic productions — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the local film industry had seen a significant downturn following the onset of the Great Depression and had only begun recovering following the release of Terang Boelan": We have another "seen/saw" here. Also, perhaps the one thing missing from the article is a bit of background to this. You had a pretty big background section in Terang Boelan; could any of this be re-used? I don't think it would hurt.

• Undergone? There's a bit that might be useful, but some in-depth explanation would probably only be relevant for Pareh, Terang Boelan, and Fatima; as Gagak Item followed on two blockbusters, such context would probably be going a bit too broad. Added a sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "although not as much as the cast's earlier films": Given that it was not only the cast that were returning, perhaps a more inclusive term would be better.

• Changed to Tan's. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "was a fair success": Again, how are we judging fair? If available, some numbers would be nice, but I suspect they do not exist.

Reworded — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Saeroen, Joshua Wong, and Mochtar all left the company in 1940"

• Done

• "Through 1941 Tan's posted large losses, and it was ultimately shut down following the Japanese occupation in early 1942."

• Done

• I'm assuming no further details of the plot are available; perhaps a note somewhere to indicate this so that no-one is complaining that there is no plot section. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• A hidden note, perhaps? I don't think I could have such a note and reference it too. Such a note would be as follows, essentially:

Biran only provides a single sentence describing Gagak Item's plot. The film's entry in the Indonesian Film Database does not include a plot summary and available contemporary reviews do not give any further details. (This is the hard to cite part) The novelisation is not held in any of the libraries searchable through WorldCat.

• I think you might be OK adding an actual note saying this, if you ref what you can and leave the rest uncited. I doubt it would be controversial and is easily removed if anyone is unhappy. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Won't hurt to try — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the look. A couple questions above. As for length, this is currently only 8 characters shorter than the FA Miss Meyers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, hope you don't mind me chipping in. I think this is a lovely article. IMO, length is irrelevant with its quality being the important bit. I for one would by happy to support this at FAC should it feature. I boldly changed p to pp for page ranges, feel free to revert if I'm talking rubbish.

• "...Terang Boelan's success. would Mochtar and Roekiah were already an established screen couple." -- Is that a stray period between "success" and "would" ? Even with it removed, I don't think " would Mochtar and Roekiah were already an established screen couple" makes much sense. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Darn, must have been really confused this morning. Nixed "would". Thanks for taking a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Informal PR

Comments from SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All very interesting—an area of film history that I knew absolutely nothing about. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, but feel free to revert them if you don't agree. Some comments for you to think over, both general and specific; I appreciate the film has been lost for 75 years and there is probably precious little written about it, so ignore the stupidly obvious manner of the questions if you've already looked and found nothing to write about! It does look thin, but I appreciate that you've probably exhausted every and all avenue of research to squeeze out as much as you have, so the questions are as much about seeing if there are possible areas for you to add some detail to the article as much as anything else. (and apologies for the repetition on the points from others - I didn't see their input until it came to posting mine!)

• I appreciate the film is lost, but do we have any further idea of the plot, except that it was about the outlaw Raven? Ditto on cast and on finances (both to make and box office)? (I expect you've already searched extensively and will answer no, but I have to ask!)

• Nothing thus far :-( See my more extensive answer above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem, and I like the idea of the note to help readers understand why there is nothing out there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Mochtar and Roekiah were already an established screen couple.[3]" I feel as if this is missing something here. Any idea how many films they appeared in prior to this, or any other of their successful outings, by way of example?

• Two, both listed here already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK - looks better with the tweak. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item was filmed and directed in black-and-white". I get filmed in B&W, but directed? Perhaps "The black-and-white Indonesian film Gagak Item was directed by…"

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks better now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I presume the music was in the local style? If so it may be worthwhile adding that, for the sake of completeness, if nothing else, and any other info about the songs too: solos, duets or ensemble? Love songs or dirges? Traditional songs or newly written?

• Nothing found, just says six songs. I'm assuming kroncong, and they are described as a kroncong troupe here. Worth adding? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, as it just adds a little more colour to the background. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC) What you have is very good, and if that's the limit of all the available information on this topic then at least you know it won't be the smallest FA on the table! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good: I'll pop into FAC shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the "Plot" section?

Surely the movie must have a storyline? Afriendlyreadervisiting (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Must have had a plot. Note how it is likely lost, and thus we can only include what is in sources... trust me, if I heard there was a surviving copy of the novelization I would have tried to access it quick as lightning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I must admit to having a similar "What? That's it?" reaction at first. Still a better read than any article on a road. The note at the end of the article is intriguing and a good argument for opening archives to the likes of Wikipedia. Stratham14 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I did manage to go to Sinematek Indonesia last December (spent about a week there)... some of the films they have (like Djaoeh Dimata) are not in viewing condition. Some of the staff told me about how a lot of the films from as late as the 1960s are not extant as well, though some were deliberately destroyed before/after the purge of the Communist Party of Indonesia and its affiliates (such as Lekra). Very tough history to piece together with so much of these lost and others damaged (their copy of Badai Pasti Berlalu, for instance, has red tinging throughout). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I noticed the note on their article about being underfunded earlier. That's unfortunately all too common and it wouldn't surprise me (based on what I've seen elsewhere) if there were stacks of boxes the contents of which are anyone's guess. Of course nitrate film is the kind of thing people tend to keep track of. :) Still, finding a lost Japanese propaganda reel or long-lost film is the kind of thing everyone who loves libraries has imagined doing at least once. I hope you keep up the great work! Stratham14 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks. For the mix and match... that's how Sinematek acquired its 1940s films. Someone was selling film by kilogram in 1975, so Biran bought it (it's in the 2012 book cited in the article). It would give me a great thrill to rediscover any of these... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And don't call me Shirly. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd buy that for a dollar! Stratham14 (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)