Talk:Ruma Maida

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 01:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "as well as the house's original owner's life" -> Maybe too many possessives here; try "as well as the life of the house's original owner." - Done
   "composer-cum-pilot" -> I'd probably phrase this as "composer and pilot". - done
   When you mention that this was Utami's first screenplay, I'd stick that in the previous sentence instead as it fits better with the mention that she's better known as a novelist. - Done
   "The Indonesian band Naif performed several covers ..." -> "covers" on its own seems a bit informal, I'd perhaps phrase this as "The Indonesian band Naif covered several songs for Ruma Maida's soundtrack". Might be worth noting the original artists for the songs mentioned, as well. - Did the first part; the second will follow.... - Added initial composers for "Bulan" and "Juwita Malam" a bunch of sources which wouldn't stand up to an FA review have "Ibu Pertiwi" as being written by an unknown author or by Ismail Marzuki; our own article on the song has it as being written by an unknown author and commonly attributed to Marzuki
   "Utami contributed "Pulau Tenggara"." -> Did she write or record it (or both)? - Fixed
   "shots are done from "unique" angles." -> I would say shots are "taken", "filmed" or "recorded"; an example might also be a good addition—are we talking trunk shots, American shots, a worm's-eye view, etc? - Source only gives "unique camera angles and effects, such as the use of sepia tones for scenes shot in Ishak’s time." If I were to expand further from the film itself it would be OR.
   You mention "Citra awards" in the lead, but in the article body you don't use this term; I know they're awards given at the Indonesian Film Festival but it'd be a good idea to name them as such in that section. - Fixed

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Not seeing any real issues here; though in the full citation for ref 11, I'd clarify the roles of Teddy Soeriaatmadja (just add "director and producer" or even just "director" in brackets after his name). - Done

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems fine, you cover a good range of points without drifting too far in any one direction.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Grand.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Not a bother.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The mention of different colour schemes being used in the film instantly put me in mind of Manhunter's colour tints, and perhaps a composite image like File:Manhunter-colours.jpg would be useful here. It's not crucial but it would definitely help; there are no other screenshots used so it wouldn't overburden the article in terms of NFCC. Other images used are grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not a lot to be done here, sticking it on hold for now to allow changes to be made. GRAPPLE X 01:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've replied above; most of it is done, but there's a question up there. I will consider readying a combined screenshot.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  Fair do, changes look grand. If you can't reliably source an artist for "Ibu Pertiwi" then I'm happy enough to leave it as is, my assumption was that these would be something akin to blues standards without any definitive author. The changes look good, I'm happy to pass this one now. GRAPPLE X 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  More or less, but with a more nationalist vibe. Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I've copy edited as requested. Very little needed changing, in my view. The longish sentence in the second para of the lead may trouble some reviewers at FAC, though it doesn't trouble me. Three queries:

• In the lead "struggle to save a historic house, as well as the life of the house's original owner" is ambiguous: at first I took it to mean that she saved the original owner's life as well as the house. You need to make it clear that (i) the struggle to save the house and (ii) the story of the original owner are the two themes.
• The relation between the text and the three notes seems to have gone awry: in the text the notes are indicated by letters (rather unusually) but the notes themselves have numbers not letters.
• In the alt text for the wedding photos you say in "a Muslim manner", but in the text you refer to the wedding as in a church, rather than a mosque.

I don't think doing this light copy-edit disqualifies me from commenting at FAC, so please let me know when you nominate it, and I'll be glad to add my support. Tim riley (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DVD release date

It came out on DVD before its premiere? If that's the case, wouldn't the DVD release be the premiere? Brutannica (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Good catch. That's supposed to be 2010. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ruma", atau "Rumah"?

"Ruma", atau "Rumah"? Kotabatubara (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw my question. I see that "Ruma" accurately reflects the title of the film, and that the "ruma"/"rumah" question belongs in some other venue. Terima kasih. Kotabatubara (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• None of the sources explain why they went with the non-standard spelling. I've never seen it elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)