Template:Did you know nominations/Indonesia Malaise

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 Allen3 ^talk 14:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia Malaise

(

)

... that the Wongs' Indonesia Malaise, targeted at native Indonesians, was paired with a film meant for Dutchmen?

Reviewed: Austin Friars, London

Created/expanded by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nom at 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Date, size are fine, but the hook stretches the facts of the article. The article never uses the expression "native Indonesians"; the ref sentence states "at lower-class native audiences". Please add the word Indonesian to it, provided it is supported by the ref. "meant for Dutchmen" is also disputable, as the sentence states that the other screening "an effort to draw Dutch audiences as well"; this is not the same as to say it was targeted at Dutchmen. On a side note, why is Sinjo Tjo Main di Film not linked? Movies are notable, and per WP:RED, red links are recommended. Ping me for a rereview. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

*Blank stare* ... you did note the link used in the article, right? "native Indonesians" is right there. I'll get the second part of your comment. I've yet to find enough sources to guarantee that an article on Sinjo Tjo could be supported, hence why it's not linked. WP:REDLINK says "create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." - I don't intend to create it unless I am satisfied it can stand alone, it's not technical, and it's not obvious that it should have an article because I'm not satisfied with notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand Piotrus' reservations. Not having access to the original article I am ready to accept Crisco's reading of his sources. New, brief hook, seemingly well-sourced, I have no objections. The redlink is a separate issue and has no bearing on this nomination. If Piotrus deems it necessary we could change "Dutchmen" to "Dutch" (although knowing something of Indonesian history, there is no risk of confusing these terms) and perhaps scans of Biran (pp. 111 and 117) could be provided? Otherwise I have no objections to confirming it as it stands. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want a scan (photograph, actually) of the source (in Indonesian, of course) email me with the email this user function from my user page. I'll send it to you. I don't mind changing Dutchmen to Dutch, but "meant for Dutch" alone looks like it's missing something. It would need to be reordered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

- sources check out, there is no doubt that "Pribumi" equals native Indonesians and "orang Belanda" makes no difference between Dutch and Dutchmen. Good to go. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)