Talk:Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doing...--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment.

• "The generals are kidnapped, and in several cases killed, in front of their families, while later the captured generals are tortured while the communists dance around a bonfire." This sentence does not sound well-structured, with two "while"s.

• Reworked slightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Director Monty Tiwa likewise praised the film's shorts..." Is that the word (shorts) that you intended? I do not have the technical knowledge to understand if "shorts" mean something in filming parlance.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Typo, thanks for picking that up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think a separate "Cast" section would be appropriate? that usually helps in easy navigation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not entirely necessary, per WP:FILMCAST point 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that cast section is not mandatory. I was merely asking if you would consider such a section, since that often help in easy navigating for the readers. They can refer back to cast section if needed, when encountering a particular actor/character's name in some other section. However, this is not necessary, and of course not a ga requirement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I'm able to get ahold of a copy where the credits are actually legible (the one I have is in p***-poor shape) I can consider that. Haven't found anything more in RSes than what's in the article already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alternative text for the images definitely need improvement, please see WP:ALT. However, this may not be a GA requirement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's currently not even an FA requirement. What do you think needs improvement? I have changed the alt text for the pictures and made them more or less like the example at WP:ALTTEXT (neither is used to describe the person in question, so describing them is not necessary) — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Yes, now the alt texts read appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I will resume the ga review soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review thus far! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article meets ll the GA criteria, so I am passing it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad edit

Gerald Waldo Luis, please stop edit warring. Per BRD, you made a bold edit which I reverted. It is now time to DISCUSS, not edit war. Your edit was a poor one. What is a "relatively high budget"? Why take "propaganda" out of the lead when it is one of the most important aspects of the article and needs to e in the first paragraph? Why excessive wording around the use of the film since Suharto fell? Why remove the very brief sentences that outline the film (a common aspect of well-written articles)? The edits represented a backward step. it's one of the reasons we have the WP:FAOWN policy, although why you don't seen to think you need to worry about it is something of a concern, as the edits here definitely needed to be discussed (and rejected) first. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:89A0:C5A6:BF92:D084 (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You should've pinged me, given that I do not watchlist this article, but I hope we can reach an agreement. I won't use any harsh language, and I hope you will too.

1. You're right about the budget bit. Apologies about that.

2. The film is not a propaganda, but rather misused as propaganda by the New Order. To put it beside "docudrama" means that it claims propaganda as a genre, which is certainly isn't.

3. Can you use quotations in the edit regarding "Why excessive wording around the use of the film since Suharto fell?" so that I can understand further?

4. I don't remove them, I summarize them and merge them to the first paragraph. There's also some excess detail that I removed. The "The film shows the G30S leadership as ruthless and planning "every move to the last detail",[2] taking joy in using excessive violence and torturing the generals, depictions which have been read as portraying "the state's enemies as outside the realm of the human".[3]" bit is too excessive and uses quotes that can be simplified to "inhumane".

5. You have also missed an indisputably fine edit where I put a translation to Penumpasan Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI.

As an addition, I don't understand what you're trying to say by telling me I won't be able to make an FA. If I'm anything right now in the FA realm, I'm still learning. I may make mistakes, but you have no right to tell me I'm never gonna make an FA. I don't assume you're telling this in bad faith (believe me, I don't), but I'm not sure what help does it do. GeraldWL 11:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Given you have edited and edit warred on this, I presumed you had it on a watchlist, but you're here now, and that is what counts.

1. OK.

2. That is dubious, given the source that was removed (Vice refers to it as "Indonesia's most-notorious propaganda film"), given the fact that the whole thing was sponsored by the Suharto government and given it was monitored and cleared by the regime before, during and after it was produced. Putting it next to "docudrama" does not necessarily mean propaganda is a genre, but propaganda can certainly be a genre (see Template:Film genres and Propaganda film).

3. Your text:

"Doubts over the film's accuracy began to arise as early as the 1980s, and increased during the advent of the Internet. Since the fall of President Suharto in 1998, the film has become less commonly used for mandatory viewing."

The existing text:

"Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, such use of the film has become less common."

4. You removed too much. There was no excessive detail there, and it should stand as it did. Remember that most readers will only ever read the lede of an article, so you need to give them enough there to gain a good understanding. The rather thin lead you left doesn't give a passing reader enough to take away with them. (The word "inhumane" will mean different things in different cultures, so using the quotes is a good way of framing it without trying to categorise it incorrectly).

5. I wouldn't call it "indisputably fine", but yes, I should have left the additional translation there, and I have re-added it.

I have not said you won't be able to, just that I doubt it. Some of the English you use is clumsy (you don't "make an FA", you write them), and some of the judgements you make (as above) are not quite right. I will repeat: I have not said you will not be able to write an FA, but the standards for doing so are a lot higher than GA. The reason I have pointed this out on a couple of occasions is that while you may think in all good faith that you are improving an FA, if you are not working to the right standards, the "improvements" are anything but. (I left WP a year or so ago having a stack of FAs and FLs under my belt and more GAs than I care to count, so I do know what I'm talking about in relation to FA standards). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:89A0:C5A6:BF92:D084 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Thanks.

2. According to WP:RSP, Vice Media is marginally reliable, and I question how it categorizes it propaganda. I don't think having a film monitored by a government means it's sponsoring the government. It's common knowledge within the Wikipedia film realm that putting it at the very beginning makes it a genre (e.g. "a 2000 comedy-drama film").

3. I don't agree but also don't disagree with your comparison there. Welp.

4. Can you elaborate as to what you mean by ""inhumane" will mean different things in different cultures"? The source says "the state's enemies as outside the realm of the human", which clearly means inhumane.

5. That's good to hear.

I do acknowledge that I'm not the best in English grammar (ESL), and I am also learning it. Luckily I have a boyfriend who assists me with my WP editing, but then again, I'm not a native. As a person who has failed two FACs, I already have a sense of what the FAC process is like. I'm also learning in this too, and I hope this can be a learning tool for me (and probably you too) instead of another temper zone. GeraldWL 12:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2. I don't think you've read that right. The film was sponsored by the government. (i.e., they paid for it. They oversaw the making and had screenings before it was released). If you do a search for "Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI" and "propaganda" into Google there are (among all the unreliable sources and mirror sites) some good sources that call it propaganda - and that's just the English ones like The New Yorker. The section in the article on propaganda use also makes it fairly clear.

4. The value of human life is judged differently by different cultures (and, to a lesser extent, within different cultures). An "inhumane" act to my eyes may be justifiable to someone from a different culture, simply because our views and values on humans and humanity differ. Avoiding classing an action as "inhumane" in Wikipedia's voice avoids a POV judgement that someone from a different culture may disagree with. The quotes avoids such POV judgements by WP, and lays them at the door of the sources, which is a subtle but important difference. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:D9B0:25D0:B6EE:7136 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2 and 4. Thanks for clarifying. My main pet peeve with those statements is that they have citations, and normally FA articles don't need citations as they are comprehensive they don't need to be cited in the lead (aka summary). Do you think the word "antagonistic" works? It's a very common term in film (there's always a certain protagonist and antagonist, and is not POV). The "Scholarly analysis" can be reinstated for attribution. GeraldWL 13:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ledes don't need to carry citations unless they are quotes: FA or not, all quotes in ledes should have a citation (see Marchioness disaster and Albert Pierrepoint as examples, both of which use sourced quotes). Antatagonistic: it depends on the context. What were you suggesting (bearing in mind WP:ANTAGONIST says to avoid both protagonist and antagonist)? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F546:12B9:F991:8A17 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull, knock it off. Knee-jerk reversions of the type you indulge in, are counter-productive and disruptive, particularly when there is a discussion in progress. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F546:12B9:F991:8A17 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In the Marchioness disaster article, I assume the bit you're referring to is "A formal inquiry in 2000 concluded that "The basic cause of the collision is clear. It was poor lookout on both vessels. Neither vessel saw the other in time to take action to avoid the collision."" I find this easily paraphrasable to "A formal inquiry in 2000 concluded that the collision was mainly due to the fact that both vessels did not see each other in time to be able to take any action." So back to this article: "planning "every move to the last detail"" basically means they are very detailed; this can be rephrased to "The film shows the G30S leadership as detailed and ruthless". MOS does prohibit "antaognistic", but there's attribution to sources so I think it's fine. GeraldWL 14:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In respect of the Marchioness article, yes it could be paraphrased, but why would you want to? It’s the conclusion of the formal investigation and probably the most important sentence in the article. Not only does it say more than the paraphrase, it is much better to include the formal legal judgement, rather than trying to rewrite something and not getting the same impact.

In terms of those article, again it’s a question of it could be paraphrased, but why would you want to? There is little or no benefit, so why would you?

There are solid, reliable sources for nearly every film that refer to the hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist, etc, yet the MOS guidance still holds true. It’s a term best avoided. Again, why would you want to use it (and where?). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9C01:C161:9BD0:C4D9 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

For me, it's because why not? It makes the lead to be clean of citations and less space taken. Maybe the Marchioness article is not the best comparison, but here it doesn't make a difference to put the formal judgement as it's not that significant; its meaning is also painfully obvious that quoting is redundant.

And regarding WP:ANTAGONIST, I'm afraid that's attributed to the Cast section. It also ends with "A well-written plot summary should convey such roles", meaning referrals as antagonist and protagonist is acceptable. It's like other film articles, where the lead summarizes critical consensus (e.g. "Critics thought that the film is boring"), but doesn't need quotation and a citation, because there's attribution, meaning no NPOV violations. GeraldWL 16:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

But why do you want to make the lede “clean of citations”? Yes, certainly my don’t use them 99% of the time as the information should be sourced elsewhere, but quite often a quote is the best choice to make. It’s certainly true of the Marchioness article, and I would say it is here too. All too often paraphrasing takes nuance out of the original text, and your version above certainly does that.

No, it’s not about the cast list, it’s about how the cast is described anywhere in the article. The full advice is given as “If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles.” (my bolding). It doesn’t matter that reliable sources call someone a hero or antagonist, we don’t. 2A01:4C8:493:C185:977:9226:6BD1:1858 (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

When I read "the state's enemies as outside the realm of the human", it felt unclear to me. "outside the realm of the human" is a vaguely stretched version of "outside of humanity" or "inhumane". "every move to the last detail" doesn't lose its essence too if paraphrasing is used. Regarding "It doesn’t matter that reliable sources call someone a hero or antagonist, we don’t"-- we don't too. We attribute sources as saying that they're a hero/villain. GeraldWL 17:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of what is quoted, which is one good reason to keep the quotes in place - no-one will quibble over any possible re-wording, as the nuance in the original still remains.

No, we don’t use sources to attribute them that way - the MOS says don’t do it, so there is no need to go against what that says not to do, regardless of what a source says. You need to read the PROTAGONIST section properly and take on board the letter and spirit of what it says. There is no need in this article to use the terms at all (the current version doesn’t, and I cannot see where the lazy use of the labels would in any way improve the article one iota. I still don’t know why you’d want to use the terms? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9823:1433:5003:6D35 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)